Partly allowed

T.Sekar, v. the Supdt.of Police

Madras HC29 Jun 2015WP(MD)/10713/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ of mandamus directing police to grant permission for an Aadal Padal programme and provide protection for a temple festival. Court granted permission subject to conditions ensuring law and order, prohibiting obscenity, politics, and communal issues.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted for festival with conditions; respondents directed to issue written permission incorporating these conditions.

T.Sekar, Vs the Supdt.of Police — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 29.06.2015

¶4

CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH

¶5

W.P(MD)No.10713 of 2015

¶6

T.Sekar ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs .

¶8

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

¶9

2.The Inspector of Police, Pattiveeranpatti Police Station, Dindigul District. ... Respondents

¶10

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to grant permission to conduct Aadal Padal festival on 30.06.2015 at 07.00 p.m., in Lakshmipuram Village, Dindigul District and give adequate police protection in connection with the Kumbabishega festival of Arulmigu Salai Muneeshwaran Kovil, Lakshmipuram, Dindigul District.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Subbiahpandian For Respondents : Mr.M.Murugan Addl.Govt.Pleader

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This writ petition has been filed seeking for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to grant permission to conduct Aadal Padal festival on 30.06.2015 at 07.00 p.m., in Lakshmipuram Village, Dindigul District and give adequate police protection in connection with the Kumbabishega festival of Arulmigu Salai Muneeshwaran Kovil, Lakshmipuram, Dindigul District.

¶14

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶15

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the Member of Arulmigu Salai Muneeshwaran Kovil Festival Committee and every year temple festival is being conducted https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ by the villagers and this year also, the villagers jointly decided to conduct the Kimbabishegam, with "Aadal Padal programme" on 30.06.2015. In this connection, a representation was given on

¶16

¶17

19.06.2015 to the respondents police, with a request to grant permission to conduct "Adal Padal Programme" on 30.06.2015, however no order was passed by the respondents on the said representation and hence the petitioner is before this Court with this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as the temple festival is celebrated in a peaceful manner by the villagers, there will be no untoward incident by the people of the village.

¶18

4.Mr.M.Murugan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, on instructions, would submit that the permission sought for by the petitioner may be granted with stringent conditions for maintaining law and order and also to avoid any untoward incident during performance of such programme.

¶19

5.Having considered the facts and circumstances and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, this court is of the view that necessary permission shall be granted to the petitioner and his villagers to conduct 'Adal Padal programme" in connection with the temple festival of Arulmigu Salai Muneeshwaran Kovil, Lakshmipuram, Dindigul District.

¶20

6.Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶21

(a)The cultural programme in connection with temple Festival at Arulmigu Salai Muneeshwaran Kovil, Lakshmipuram, Dindigul District be held on 30.06.2015 between 06.00 p.m. and 10.30 p.m.

¶22

(b)There should not be any kind of obscene dance or vulgar dialogues during the performance, by anyone of the participants;

¶23

(c)Double meaning songs should not be played so as to spoil the minds of students and youths.

¶24

(d)No dance or songs, touching upon any political party or religion or community or caste be played.

¶25

(e)No flex boards in support of any political party or communal leader be erected.

¶26

(f)The function should not affect either religious or communal harmony and shall be conducted without any discrimination based on caste.

¶27

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

¶28

(g)If there is any violation of any one of the conditions imposed, the concerned police officer is at liberty to take necessary action, as per law and stop such performance; and

¶29

¶30

(h)Similarly, the police is entitled to stop the dance programme, if it exceeds beyond the permitted time.

¶31

(i)The second respondent is directed to issue necessary permission, incorporating the above conditions.

¶32

No costs.

¶33

Sd/Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side)

¶34

\True copy\

¶35

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶36

¶37

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

¶38

2.The Inspector of Police, Pattiveeranpatti Police Station, Dindigul District.

¶39

+1cc to M/s.R.Subbiah, Advocate Sr.No.34468

¶40

¶41

akm/29.06.15 /3p-4c/

¶42

W.P(MD)No.10713 of 2015 29.06.2015

¶43

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

T.Sekar, v. the Supdt.of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Sekar, v. the Supdt.of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Ramasamy Asari, Vs the Commissioner of Police

V.Indiarani Vs the Director General of Police

Dr.G.Sundaram Vs the Inspector of Police

R.Arunprasath Vs the Inspector of Police

M. Vivekananthan Vs the Superintendent of Police

V.Suganya Vs the Inspector of Police