Disposed

S.Chinnappan, v. the District Collector

Madras HC24 Mar 2015WP(MD)/4055/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a PIL seeking a writ of mandamus to allow a Catholic car procession via a specific route. Citing severe past violence (15 murders) and safety concerns between rival religious groups, the Court directed respondents to permit the procession only via the previously established route rather than the new contested one.

What did the court decide?

Respondents are directed to permit the petitioner only to have the car procession in the same route as that of the earlier procession.

S.Chinnappan, Vs the District Collector — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.03.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN

¶5

and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.S.RAVI

¶6

W.P(MD)No.4055 of 2015 and MP(MD).No.1/2015

S.Chinnappan

... Petitioner

Vs .

1.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Collectorate,Virudhunagar.

¶11

2.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶12

3.The Tahsildar, Srivilliputhur Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

¶13

4.The Inspector of Police, Vathirairuppu Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, for directing the respondents to allow the petitioner and 300 Catholic families to undertake the Car Procession (Chappara Bavani) via Maruvai Thalai and Ambedkar Street and to give adequate protection to the participants ensuring peaceful and prayerful exercise of their fundamental religious rights on 05.04.2015 during the time of celebrating the Easter Festival as mentioned in the representation dated 03.02.2015 and to pass such further or other orders. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sahaya Philonmin Raj For Respondents : Mr.K.Chellapandian, AAG assisted by Mr.M.Alagathevan, Special Government Pleader.

¶16

ORDER

¶17

(Order of the Court was made by S.TAMILVANAN,J )

¶18

This writ petition has been filed as a Public Interest https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Litigation (PIL), invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to allow

¶19

¶20

the petitioner and 300 Catholic families to undertake a car procession (Chappara Bavani) via Maruvai Thalai and Ambedkar street and give protection to the participants ensuring peaceful and prayerful exercise of their fundamental religious rights on 05.04.2015 during the time of celebrating the Easter festival as mentioned in the representation dated 03.02.2015.

¶21

2.Mr.K.Chellapandian, learned Additional Advocate General drew the attention of this Court to the counter filed by the Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, the second respondent herein. He had also drew the attention of this Court to the sketch relating to the RC church nearby Mariyamman Temple and other physical features in the area.

¶22

3.The topography produced by the respondents shows that in the car procession (chappara bavani) is permitted by the respondents from R.C church on the west towards east and then north to various areas however not permitted the procession to go on the disputed street considering the safety of the people of both sides.

¶23

4.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that for about 90 years, the procession (chappara bavani) of church had been taken inside the streets of the area where Mariyamman temple is available, however from 2011 permission is not granted by the authorities.

¶24

5.It is seen that both the petitioner and the rival group of people belonging to same community but different religion. It is shocking to note that there were 15 murders have taken place between the two groups in taking the car procession as per the counter filed by the Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, the second respondent herein, all the case numbers relating to the said offences and other details are given in the counter. It shows that both the groups are aggressive and there is no safety even for the life of the persons joining with the procession or the person residing nearby the aforesaid street. We are mostly concerned about the safety of the people of both the groups. Unless neutrally if one group respects the sentiments of the other group and a conducive atmosphere is created permitting the procession of the petitioner to enter into the area of the other party as stated by the learned Additional Advocate General would not be safe.

¶25

6.During the course of arguments, Mr.K.Kumaravel, a practising lawyer of this Court submitted that he is appearing for the rival party and that there is no safety for both the groups https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for permitting the procession (chappara bavani) in a different route, other than the route permitted by the respondents.

¶26

¶27

7.Having considered the facts and circumstances and considering the safety of the people and to avoid any untoward incident, the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner only to have the car procession (chappara bavani) in the same route as that of the earlier procession.

¶28

8.With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, M.P(MD)No.1 of 2015 is closed.

¶29

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶30

/True Copy/

¶31

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶32

¶33

1.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Collectorate, Virudhunagar.

¶34

2.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶35

3.The Tahsildar, Srivilliputhur Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

¶36

4.The Inspector of Police, Vathirairuppu Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

¶37

+1cc to Mr.K.Sahaya Philomin Raj,Advocate Sr.No. 14747 +1cc to Mr.K.Kumarevel,Advocate Sr.No. 14291 +1cc to Spl.Government Pleader Sr.No. 14291 sms

¶38

AA/01.04.2015/3p- 8c/

¶39

W.P(MD)No.4055 of 2015 24.03.2015

¶40

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

S.Chinnappan, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Chinnappan, v. the District Collector

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

International Srivaishnava Vs the Commissioner

P.Balasubramaniam, Vs the State Rep.by Its Principal

O.Kodiyarasan, Vs the Superintendent of Police

The Registrar (Admn.), Vs the Principal Secretary

P.Muthulakshmi Vs the Registrar General

Maruthupandi, Vs the Superintendent of Police