Disposed

Devarajan v. the District Collector, Malappuram

Kerala HC31 Oct 2011WP(C)/25326/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a police order limiting procession jurisdiction. Justice Antony Dominic disposed of the petition, leaving it open for petitioner to make an application to the District Collector specifying the place for Ganesha idol immersion, which the Collector must then reply to.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to make application to 1st Respondent for specific immersion place; Collector directed to reply.

Devarajan Vs the District Collector… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

MONDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2011 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 25326 of 2011(M)

¶6

--------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

------------------------

¶9

DEVARAJAN, S/O.THANKARAJ, CHEMBRANTHOTTATHIL HOUSE, P.O.KADAMPUZHA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 553, PRESIDENT SREE GANESHA UTHSAVA AGOSHA COMMITTEE, KADAMPUZHA.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

------------------------

¶13

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM, PIN-673 001. MALAPPURAM PO

¶14

2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM-673 001. MALAPPURAM PO

¶15

3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALANCHERRY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 603. VALANCHERRY PO

¶16

SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.J.RAJASHREE FOR R2,3

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WPC NO.25326/11

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶21

EXHIBIT-P1-TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE GRANTED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR USING LOUS SPEAKER DURING PROESSION.
EXHIBIT-P2-TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 08/02/2011 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT-P3-TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 25/08/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P4-TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 25/08/2011 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT, TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT-P5- TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 25/08/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P6- TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.GR/44141/11/MPM DATED 25/08/2011 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P7- TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 25/08/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P8- TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN FOR PAYMENT OF RS.100/- TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT-P9- TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.G1/44104/11/MPM DATED 25/08/2011 BY THE OFFICE OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT, TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT-P1O- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 29/08/2011 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 25326 OF 2011

¶26

=====================

¶27

Dated this the 31^st day of October, 2011

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

The issue raised in this writ petition pertains to the claim of the petitioner for taking out a religious procession as part of Ganesha Uthsav. Ext.P10 communication was issued to the petitioner directing him that the procession should terminate within the territorial jurisdiction of the Kalpakancherry Police Station. It is this order, which is challenged in the writ petition.

¶30

During the pendency of the writ petition, on 2/9/11, the District Collector issued a confidential communication following the decisions that were taken by all party meeting held on 20/8/11, which states that the petitioner will be permitted to immerse the idol of Lord Ganesha in the nearest water body without specifying any particular one. When a copy of the said communication was made available to the learned counsel for the petitioner, what he complains mainly is regarding the absence of any particular place specified in the communication, which is factually correct.

¶31

Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition leaving it open to

¶32

WPC No. 25326/11

¶33

:2 :

¶34

the petitioner to make an appropriate application to the 1^st respondent, in which event, the 1^st respondent will give a reply to him specifying the place at which Ganesha idols could be immersed by the petitioner.

¶35

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶36

Devarajan v. the District Collector, Malappuram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devarajan v. the District Collector, Malappuram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Basheer M Vs Padma Kumar

Krishnankutty Nair Vs Vijayalakshmi

N.K.Ramadasan Vs the State of Kerala and Others

Anilkumar E.K. & Others Vs the Controller of Examinations

M.C.Joseph Vs State Ofkerala

The Director, Little Flower College Vs Kerala Nurses and Midwives