Allowed

S.Adhipathi, v. The Superintendent of Police

Madras HC21 Mar 2016WP/10389/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking permission to conduct a cultural dance program at a temple. The court granted permission despite the respondent's apprehension of law and order, imposing conditions to prevent obscenity, political/communal content, and ensuring harmony, while empowering police to take action in case of violations.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed; the petitioner is permitted to conduct the cultural program on 31.03.2016 subject to eight specific conditions, and respondents are directed to issue the necessary permis

S.Adhipathi, Vs The Superintendent of Police — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 21.03.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH

¶5

Writ Petition No.10389 of 2016

S.Adhipathi

... Petitioner

vs.

The Superintendent of Police
Salem District,
Salem.

¶10

The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Mettur Division,
Mettur Taluk,
Salem District.

¶11

The Inspector of Police
Mecheri Police Station,
Mettur Taluk,
Salem District. ... Respondents

¶12

Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant permission to conduct the Dance program scheduled to be held on 31.03.2016 at Sri Mariamman Temple, Kammampatti, Kammampatti Post, Mettur Taluk, Salem District.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.G.K.Sekar

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.S.Pattabiraman, Govt. Advocate

¶15

ORDER

¶16

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

¶17

Seeking permission to conduct cultural programme on 31.03.2016 at Sri Mariamman Temple, Kammampatti, Kammampatti Post, Mettur Taluk, Salem District, the petitioner made a representation, dated 14.03.2016 to the third respondent. As the same has not been considered, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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 31.03.2016 at Sri Mariamman Temple Kammampatti, Kammampatti Post, Mettur Taluk, Salem District, however, with the following conditions:-

¶22

(a) The cultural programme in connection with temple Festival at Sri Mariamman Temple, Kammampatti, Kammampatti Post, Mettur Taluk, Salem District, to be held on 31.03.2016 between 06.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m.

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶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

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

¶30

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

¶31

Further, the respondents are directed to issue necessary permission, incorporating the above conditions. No costs.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

Asst.Registrar (CS VII )

¶34

/true copy/

¶35

Sub Asst. Registrar
tsvn
To
1. The Superintendent of Police
Salem District,
Salem.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Mettur Division, Mettur Taluk,
Mettur Dam
Salem District.
3. The Inspector of Police
Mecheri Police Station,
Mettur Taluk, Salem District.
1 cc to M/s.G.K.Sekar, Sr. 17797
1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr. 18082
W.P.No.10389 of 2016
SNS (CO)
kk 24/3

¶36

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

S.Adhipathi, v. The Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Adhipathi, 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

S.Manimekalai, Vs The Tahsildar

K.Satha Sivam Vs The Inspector of Police

M.Jesi, Vs The Secretary to Government

S.Kalaiganh Vs The District Civil Supply

Uma Mageshwari, Vs The Commissioner of Police

K.Narasimma Reddy Vs The Additional Chief