Allowed

K.Satha Sivam v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC18 Mar 2016WP/10170/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking permission to conduct cultural programs like Theru Koothu and dance in a temple. Rejecting the argument that mere apprehension of law and order justified refusal, the court granted permission subject to conditions prohibiting obscene content, political propaganda, and ensuring compliance with specified time limits.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Mandamus allowed to issue permission for conducting the stated cultural programs between 6 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on 29.03.2016 subject to conditions regarding content, timing, and harmony; police

K.Satha Sivam Vs The Inspector of Police — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 18.03.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH

¶5

W.P.No.10170 of 2016

¶6

K.Satha Sivam ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Inspector of Police, Magudanchavadi Police Station, Magudanchavadi, Sankagiri Taluk, Salem District. ... Respondent

¶9

Prayer:

¶10

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent herein to give permission to conduct cultural and entertainment program like Theru Koothu, Nadagam, Drama, Karakattam, Oyilattam, Nariyattam, Vandivesam, Light music and Adal padal dance programs etc. scheduled to be held on 29.03.2016 by considering the petitioner representation dated 10.03.2016.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Murali For Respondent : Mr.P.Karthikeyan Government Advocate O R D E R

¶12

By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶13

2.Seeking permission to conduct cultural programme on 29.03.2016 in Arulmighu Muthu Mariamman Temple, the petitioner made a representation dated 10.03.2016 to the respondent. As the same has not been considered, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶14

3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent.

¶15

4.Learned Government Advocate, on instructions, would submit that there is likelihood of law and order problem.

¶16

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

¶17

5.A mere apprehension cannot be a ground to reject the representation. There is absolutely no material before this Court to hold that there will be a law and order problem in the event of permission being granted. In such view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to conduct cultural programme on 29.03.2016 in Arulmighu Muthu Mariamman Temple, however, with the following conditions:-

¶18

(a) The petitioner is directed to furnish the venue with specific address to the respondent forthwith and on receipt of the same, the respondent shall permit the petitioner to conduct the cultural programme in connection with Temple Festival at Arulmighu Muthu Mariamman Temple in the address given by the petitioner on 29.03.2016 between 06.00 p.m. to 10.30p.m.

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

(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

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

Further, the respondent is directed to issue necessary permission, incorporating the above conditions. No costs.

¶28

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS II)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
The Inspector of Police,
Magudanchavadi Police Station,
Magudanchavadi, Sankagiri Taluk,
Salem District.
+1cc to Mr.M.Murali, Advocate, S.R.No.17553
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.17749
W.P.No.10170 of 2016
sns(CO)
srg(21/03/2016)

¶29

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

K.Satha Sivam v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Satha Sivam v. The Inspector 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

Mr. v. Ezhilmaran, Vs The Deputy Inspector General

K.Manjunathan, Vs The Inspector of Police

Shammer S.Shah, Vs The Commissioner

S.Manimekalai, Vs The Tahsildar

M.Jesi, Vs The Secretary to Government

S.Anandhi Vs The Secretary to Government