A.Ramasamy Naickar, v. The Superintendent Of Police,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.06.2016
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE S.VIMALA W.P(MD) No.9723 of 2016 A.Ramasamy Naickar
...Petitioner
-vs1.
The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.
2.
The Sub-Inspector of Police, Paralachi Police Station, Virudhunagar District.
...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order issued by the 2nd respondent dated 23.05.2016 and quash the same as illegal and consequentially direct the 2nd respondent to grant permission to the temple festival for conducting "Kiramiya Kalai Nigalchi" at the evening hours on 11.06.2016 in Sri Sithi Vinayagar and Sri Arumuga Swamy Temple, Vadakkunatham Village, Paralachi Post, Virudhunagar District.
For Petitioner :
Mr.P.Venkata Subramanian For Respondents :
Mr.D.Muruganandam, Addl. Govt. Pleader *****
O R D E R
The writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 23.05.2016 with the consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to grant permission to the temple festival for conducting "Kiramiya Kalai Nigalchi" at the evening hours on 11.06.2016 in Sri Sithi Vinayagar and Sri Arumuga Swamy Temple, Vadakkunatham Village, Paralachi Post, Virudhunagar District.
2. Mr.D.Muruganandam, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the programme is being conducted by the villagers regularly in order to promote harmony during the above said https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
festival period. He would further submit that the representation given to the third respondent was rejected vide the impugned order.
5. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would submit that considering the law and problem prevalent in the area, the permission for conducting the programme was rejected.
6. However, the reasons alleged may not exist as of now and as the situation is liable to change, the petitioner is permitted to make a fresh representation.
7. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation to the second respondent in person on 08.06.2016 and on receipt of such representation, the second respondent is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders on merits and as per law on or before 10.06.2016, as the function is stated to be scheduled on 11.06.2016.
With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AE) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai-23.
To:
1.
The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.
2.
The Sub-Inspector of Police, Paralachi Police Station, Virudhunagar District.
+1cc to M/s.R.Rajesh, Advocate in SR.27415 +1cc to the Special Government Pleader, in SR.27568 W.P(MD) No.9723 of 2016 02.06.2016 ar.
PBK/GSV-PM/SAR-III 07/06/2016 ::2P-5C::(IT) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/