Madras High CourtWP(MD)/9336/2016disposed of

R.Balasubramani, v. The Superintendent Of Police

2016-05-19Honourable Mr Justice B. Gokuldas2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.05.2016

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.GOKULDAS W.P.(MD) No.9336 of 2016 and WMP(MD)No.7402 of 2016 R.Balasubramani ... Petitioner -vs1.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Sempatti Police Station, Dindigul District.

.. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 13.05.2016 passed by the second respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the second respondent to grant permission to perform the cultural programme I.e., dance programme on 24.05.2016 at the evening hours in the light of Sri Kannimar and Sri Karuppanasamy Temple Thiruvizha at Koolampatti Village, Aathur Taluk, Dindigul district.

For Petitioner:

Mr.M.Kamatchi For Respondent:

Mr.D.Muruganantham Addl. Govt. Pleader

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed, seeking to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 13.05.2016 passed by the second respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the second respondent to grant permission to perform the cultural programme I.e., dance programme on 24.05.2016 at the evening hours in the light of Sri Kannimar and Sri Karuppanasamy Temple Thiruvizha at Koolampatti Village, Aathur Taluk, Dindigul district.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the villagers jointly decided to conduct cultural programme I.e., dance programme on 24.05.2016 at the evening hours in the light of Sri Kannimar and Sri Karuppanasamy Temple Thiruvizha at Koolampatti Village, Aathur Taluk, Dindigul district. He would further submit that in this connection, a representation was given to the respondent police on 13.05.2016, with a request to grant permission to conduct the programme on the above said date. However, the respondent Police has rejected the representation of the petitioner dated 13.05.2016 and hence, the petitioner is before this Court with this Writ Petition.

3. The learned Additional Government Advocate, submitted that if the petitioner gives a fresh representation, the respondent police will consider the same.

4. In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to give a fresh representation to the respondent police and on receipt of such representation, the respondent police are directed to consider the same pass orders on merits and in accordance with law.

With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

Sd/- Vacation Officer /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

am To:

1.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District,Dindigul.

2.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Sempatti Police Station, Dindigul District.

+1 cc to Special Government Pleader, SR No.26489 +1 CC to Mr.Mr.M.Kamatchi Advocate SR.No.26802 RG.GSV-MP/SAR-III 20.05.2016 2P.5C W.P.(MD) No.9336 of 2016 19.05.2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/