Andiyappan.G v. The Superintendent Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.03.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.1453 & 1454 of 2025 G.Andiyappan ... Review Petitioner/Petitioner Vs.
1.The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.
2.The Inspector of Police, Sakkotai Police Station, Sivagangai District.
... Respondents/Respondents PRAYER in Rev. Aplc.(MD)No.10 of 2025: Review application is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 114 of C.P.C., to set aside the Order, dated 12.04.2023 passed in W.P.(MD).No.8236 of 2023. PRAYER in W.P.(MD).No.8236 of 2023: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to grant permission and necessary protection to conduct the 'Adal Padal' Programme on 14.04.2023 at 06.00 PM to 11.00 PM in connection with 'Thiru Vizha' of 1/5
Arulmigu Sri Muthu Mariamman Thirukovil at Palaiyur Village, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.R.Kasi Viswanathan For Respondents : Mr.S.Prakash Government Advocate (Crl. side)
ORDER
This application has been filed to set aside the Order, dated 12.04.2023 passed in W.P.(MD).No.8236 of 2023. 2.This review application is filed seeking review of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD).No.8236 of 2023. This writ petition was taken up for hearing on 12.04.2023. At that time it was submitted by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) that for similar programme some other person filed W.P.(MD).No.6904 of 2023. So the Writ petition was dismissed by imposing cost of Rs.10,000/- upon the review petitioner. Against which, this review application has been filed on the ground that the respondent namely Inspector of Police, Sakkottai Police Station, has given wrong information to the Court that for the very same programme the above said writ petition was filed by the third parties and 2/5
order has been obtained. But, in fact, for this particular programme no order was passed and obtained by any other person. For fourteen days, the programme was arranged in the temple. Only for a particular date, the Writ petition was filed seeking direction to the respondents to consider the representation. But, by mistake it was submitted before the Court by the respondents that for the particular date of programme also order was already passed.
3.On that ground the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) was required to verify the same. After verification, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) submitted before the Court that for the particular date no order was obtained. Only general order was obtained by some third parties.
4.After hearing the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) the petitioner was warned not to indulge in such sort of filing writ petitions mentioning a particular day. If at all permission and protection can be granted for the temple festival and not for the individual programmes. The petitioner also undertakes to correct his mistake in future. 3/5
5.With the above said warning, the order regarding imposing cost upon the review petitioner is hereby recalled. In respect of dismissal of writ petition, no interference is called for. It will stand. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 20.03.2025 NCC :
Yes / No Index :
Yes / No Internet :
Yes / No TM To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.
2.The Inspector of Police, Sakkottai Police Station, Sivagangai District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4/5
G.ILANGOVAN ,J.
TM 20.03.2025 5/5