Disposed

N.Harimannan v. The Superintendent of Police

Madras HC4 Dec 2015WP/38209/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ under Article 226 for permission to hold a meeting and procession commemorating Dr. Ambedkar. The High Court directed the police to permit the meeting in some place and consider an alternative route for the procession, while leaving the final procession permit decision subject to further representation.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to permit the meeting; petitioner to approach 1st respondent for alternative procession route with earliest consideration.

N.Harimannan Vs The Superintendent of Police — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 04.12.2015

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH

¶6

W.P. No. 38209 of 2015

N.Harimannan

...Petitioner

Vs.

The Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore District.

¶11

The Inspector of Police, Mattupalayam Police Station, Coimbatore District.

¶12

...Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to give permission to the petitioner to conduct the procession from Abirami Theatre to Jawahar Bus Stand, at Mettupalayam, Coimbatore District , on 06.12.2015, at about 10.00 A.M.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Saravanan, For Respondents : Mr.V.Subbiah, Addl. Government Pleader

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The petitioner made a representation to the respondents to get permission to conduct procession from Abirami Theatre to Jawahar Bus

¶17

¶18

Stand, at Mettupalayam, Coimbatore District, on 06.12.2015 to commorate the memorial of the great Leader Dr. Ambedkar. On 01.12.2015, an order was passed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Peruyanayakan Palayam Sub-Division, Coimbatore District expressing the difficulty in allowing the procession. As the said representation has not been considered, the petitioner has come forward to file this writ petition before this Court

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that while there is no difficulty for granting permission to conduct the meeting as done in the previous year, allowing the procession would lead to traffic congestion. It is also submitted that through some other route, the permission to have procession can be allowed.

¶20

Considering the above facts, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to give permission to hold the meeting as done in the previous year, in some place subject to the conditions that can be imposed including the time for conducting such meeting. Insofar as the procession is concerned, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the 1st respondent. As and when the petitioner approaches,

¶21

¶22

the 1st respondent shall consider the possibilities of giving permission to the alternative route, subject to the condition that can be imposed. Such an order will have to be passed by the 1st respondent at the earliest, since the meeting is scheduled to be held by the petitioner on 06.12.2015.

¶23

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶24

04.12.2015

¶25

Note: Registry to issue order copy today. rms

¶26

Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No

¶27

¶28

The Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore District.

¶29

The Inspector of Police, Mattupalayam Police Station, Coimbatore District.

M.M.SUNDRESH,J.

rms

W.P.No. 38209 of 2015

¶34

04.12.2015

N.Harimannan v. The Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Harimannan v. The Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Kanmani Vs Union of India

Thulasi Vs The District Collector

K.Thangarasu, Vs The District Collector

Mr.Parampil Alexander Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

B.S.Venkatesan Vs The Branch Manager

D.Pazhamalai, Vs The Chairman / Special Deputy