Allowed

M.Yuvaraj v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC6 Jan 2016WP/113/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allowed a writ petition against the Police Inspector, directing him to grant permission for cultural programs scheduled on January 13 and 14, 2016. The court rejected the respondent's apprehension of law and order issues due to lack of material evidence and imposed eight specific conditions regarding time, content, and non-discrimination.

What did the court decide?

Allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent to issue permission for the cultural programs between 6:00 p.m. and 10:30 p.m., subject to conditions prohibiting obscenity, political/communal co

M.Yuvaraj Vs The Inspector of Police — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 06.01.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH

W.P.No.113 of 2016

M.Yuvaraj

Vs.

The Inspector of Police, Thiruchengode Rural Police Station Namakkal District ... Respondent

¶9

Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 23.12.2015 made to the respondent, to grant permission in order to conduct the cultural programs and to give protection for the said programs which are scheduled to be conducted on 13.1.2016 and 14.1.2016 at Shri Pachainachi Amman kovil Thidal, situated at Muppattampalayam village, Thevanankurich post, Thiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Ramkumar

¶11

For Respondent : Mr.V.Subbiah, Spl.Govt.Pleader

¶12

Seeking permission to conduct cultural program scheduled to be held on 13.1.2016 and 14.1.2016 at Shri Pachainachi Amman kovil Thidal, situated at Muppattampalayam village, Thevnankurich post, Thiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District, the petitioner made a representation dated 23.12.2015 to the respondent. As the same has not been considered, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

4.A mere apprehension cannot be a ground to reject the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ representation. There is absolutely no material before this

¶16

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 programmes on 13.1.2016 and 14.1.2016 at Shri Pachainachi Amman kovil Thidal, situated at Muppattampalayam village, Thevnankurich post, Thiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District, however, with the following conditions:-

¶17

(a)The cultural programmes in connection with Shri Pachainachi Amman kovil Thidal, situated at Muppattampalayam village, Thevnankurich post, Thiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District, be held on 13.1.2016 and 14.1.2016 between 06.00 p.m and 10.30 p.m.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

(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

¶24

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

¶25

(i)The respondent is directed to issue necessary permission, incorporating the above conditions. No costs.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)

¶28

//True Copy//

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

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

¶31

¶32

The Inspector of Police, Thiruchengode Rural Police Station Namakkal District

¶33

+1 cc to Mr.J.Ramkumar, Advocate, sr.494

¶34

+1 cc to the Govt.Pleader,SR.968 (18/5/16)

¶35

W.P.No.113 of 2016

¶36

kra 6.1.2016

¶37

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

M.Yuvaraj v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Yuvaraj 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

K.P.Ravichandran Vs The Inspector of Police

T.Karthick Vs The Inspector of Police

R.Ravi Vs The Inspector of Police

Dr.K.R.S.Girija Shyamsundar Vs M.v.Muralidaharan

Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Vs Gail (India) Ltd.

S.Elumalai Vs Sivashanmugaraja IAS