Allowed

Mrs.v.Suguna, v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC23 Mar 2016WP/10778/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed by a villager seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Revenue Divisional Officer and Police Department to consider a representation for conducting the Panguni Festival at a temple in Namakkal District before the scheduled dates. The Court directed the respondents to permit the festival to be conducted smoothly without any law and ord

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to grant permission for conducting the Panguni Festival from 24.03.2016 to 07.04.2016 without law and order problem.

Mrs.v.Suguna, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 23.03.2016

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH

¶5

W.P.No.10778 of 2016

¶6

V.Suguna ... Petitioner

¶7

vs.

¶8

The Revenue Divisional Officer Revenue Divisional Office, Thiruchengodu, Namakkal District.

¶9

The Deputy Superintendent of Police Police Department, Thiruchengodu, Namakkal District.

¶10

The Joint Commissioner HR & CE Department, Salem. ... Respondents

¶11

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 16.03.2016, seeking permission for conducting the Panguni Festival before 24.03.2016 to 07.04.2016 at Vinayagar Mariamman Karia Kula Kaliamman Temple at Padaveedu village, Natham Medu, Kumarapalayam Taluk, Namakkal District.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sethuraman For Respondents : Mrs.P.Rajalakshmi, Govt. Advocate for R1 & R2 Mrs.Rita Chandrasekar, Spl.G.P for R3

¶13

The writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order in the nature of writ of mandamus, directing the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 16.03.2016, seeking permission for conducting the Panguni Festival before 24.03.2016 to 07.04.2016 at Vinayagar Mariamman Karia Kula Kaliamman Temple at Padaveedu village, Natham Medu, Kumarapalayam Taluk, Namakkal District.

¶14

The petitioner herein is one of the villagers and devotees of the Vinayagar Mariamman and Karia Kaliamman Temple,

¶15

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

¶16

situated at Padaveedu village, Natham Medu, Namakkal District. From time memorial, the villagers of Padaveedu village, especially the women folks celebrate the 'Panguni Annual Festival' in the aforesaid temple. It is a very popular festival in the said area and people from 11 villagers in and around come to participate in the festival, which will be conducted for 15 days in th Tamil month of Panguni. Now there had been a ongoing rivalry between the pandarams and a sect of Kongu Vellalar community regarding administration of the temple. The dispute has reached that it became a law and order problem in that area during the festival last year. Thereafter, the RDO had intervened in the matter and proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C was initiated and both the groups were prevented from participating in the festival and the villagers were allowed to conduct the festival. It seems that the dispute between the two groups is still continuing.

¶17

According to the petitioner, the preparation for the panguni festival for this year has begun and while so, the pandarams had given a complaint to the police station that the panguni festival is going to be conducted by one Mr.C.Danabal, belonging to Aanthal Kottam Kongu Vellalar community and if he is allowed to conduct the festival, it will create law and order problems and public peace will be affected. Based on the said complaint, the first respondent convened a meeting on 15.03.2016 and the meeting were attended by both the groups. After deliberation and discussion, it was agreed by both the parties that they will not participate in any of the programme of the festival and they will not create any law and order problem.

¶18

While so, the villagers in the interest of entire community want the festival to be conducted as per the scheduled, hence, the villagers have made representation, dated 16.03.2016 to the respondents, seeking permission to permit them to conduct the festival assuring them that there will not be any law and order problem. But till date, there is no reply from the respondents and hence, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of filing the present writ petition, seeking for the relief as stated supra.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate appearing for R1 and R2 as well as the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for HR & CE.

¶20

When the matter is taken up, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the villagers are ready and willing to conduct the festival in the presence of the respondents 1 and 2 herein, for which the learned Government Advocate and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for HR & CE have no objection.

¶21

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

¶22

In view of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Court directs the respondents to grant permission to the petitioner for conducting the Panguni Festival, which is going to be held from 24.03.2016 to 07.04.2016 at Vinayagar Mariamman and Karia Kaliamman Temple, situated at Padaveedu village, Natham Medu, Namakkal District, in the presence of the respondents 1 and 2 smoothly, without creating any law and order problem.

¶23

With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. tsvn

¶24

-s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Revenue Divisional Officer
Revenue Divisional Office,
Thiruchengodu, Namakkal District.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Police Department,
Thiruchengodu, Namakkal District.
3. The Joint Commissioner
HR & CE Department, Salem.
+ 1 cc to Mr.S.Sethuraman, Advocate, SR 18505
+ 1 cc to Govt.Pleader, High Court, Madras SR 18493
ca(co)
prk23/3 W.P.No.10778 of 2016

¶25

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

Mrs.v.Suguna, v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.v.Suguna, v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

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

C.Peragounder Vs The Inspector of Police

K.Dravida Mani, (Organizer) Vs State Rep. by its

R.Karthikeyan Vs State

K.Valar, Vs The Secretary to Government

Dr.R.Prabakaran, Vs The Secretary to Government

M.K.Mustaffa Vs The Principal Secretary to