Allowed

K.P.Ravichandran v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC5 Jan 2016WP/14/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the Madras High Court directed the respondent police to grant permission for a cultural programme. The court held that mere apprehension of law and order is insufficient without material evidence.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to conduct cultural programme on 07.01.2016 subject to conditions including timing, content restrictions, and prohibition of political/communal messages.

K.P.Ravichandran Vs The Inspector of Police — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 05.01.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH

¶5

W.P. No.14 of 2016

¶6

K.P.Ravichandran

¶7

Vs. The Inspector of Police, Cithodu Police Station, Erode District. .. Respondent

¶8

PRAYER : Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent authority to give permission to conduct the cultural programme at Kalingarayanpalayam Sri Mariamman Koil Thiruvizha, on 07.01.2016 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 23.12.2015.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.R.P.Murugan Raja For Respondent : Mr.V.Subbiah Special Government Pleader O R D E R

¶10

Seeking permission to conduct a cultural programme scheduled to be held on 07.01.2016 at Kalingarayanpalayam Sri Mariamman Koil Thiruvizha, Erode 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.

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

4.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

¶14

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

¶15

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 07.01.2016 at Kalingarayanpalayam Sri Mariamman Koil Thiruvizha, Erode District, however, with the following conditions:-

¶16

(a) The cultural programme in connection with temple Festival of Kalingarayanpalayam Sri Mariamman Koil, Erode District, be held on 07.01.2016 between 06.00 p.m and 10.30 p.m.

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

(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

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶26

//True Copy//

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

sri

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

The Inspector of Police, Cithodu Police Station, Erode District.

¶32

+1 cc to M/s.R.P.Murugan Raja, Advocate, sr.471

¶33

W.P. No.14 of 2016

¶34

gr co kra 05.01.2016

¶35

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

K.P.Ravichandran v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.P.Ravichandran 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

S.Patteswari, Vs The Chief Secretary

K.Chitra Vs Vibu Nair IAS

R.Murugan Vs G.Paulraj

T.Karthick Vs The Inspector of Police

R.Ravi Vs The Inspector of Police

Tmt.S.Santhi Vs the Chief Secretary