Disposed

V.N.Kumar @ Senkuttuvan v. The Inspector General of

Madras HC15 Feb 2016WP/5063/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order finding petition maintainable but disposing of it as infructuous regarding the first prayer. Directs petitioner to make fresh representation for the second prayer to decide within a week. Connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

What did the court decide?

Directs petitioner to give fresh representation for Masi month festival; respondent to consider and pass order within one week. Connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

V.N.Kumar @ Senkuttuvan Vs The Inspector General of — Madras HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 15.02.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA

¶5

W.P.No.5063 of 2016

¶6

and WMP.Nos.4409 and 4410 of 2016

¶7

V.N.Kumar @ Senkuttuvan : Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Inspector General of Police, Puducherry, Puducherry. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Karaikkal, Karaikkal Taluk and District. 3.The Town Circle Inspector of Police, Karaikkal, Puducherry. : Respondents

¶10

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned rejection order of the 3rd respondent in Letter No.90/SCR/16 dated 22.1.2016 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to grant permission to conduct the Pournami Pooja Yagam (Masi Month) schedule to be held on 22.2.2016 and other Temple Festivals in Arulmighu Drowpadhai Amman Aalayam, Kovilpathu, Karaikkal.

¶11

For Petitioner :Mr.V.Kasinatha Bharathi

¶12

For Respondents :Mr.M.R.Thangavel

¶13

Additional Public Prosecutor (Pondy)

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

The present Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned rejection order of the 3^rd respondent in Letter No.90/SCR/16, dated 22.01.2016, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to grant permission to conduct the Pournami Pooja Yagam (Masi Month) schedule to be held on 22.2.2016 and other Temple Festivals in Arulmighu Drowpadhai Amman Aalayam, Kovilpathu, Karaikkal.

¶16

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

¶17

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has given a requisition on 07.01.2016 seeking permission to conduct Pournami Pooja Yagam in the month of Thai, scheduled to be held on 21.01.2016 and the same has been rejected by the respondent. Against which the present petition has been filed.

¶18

3.At this juncture, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the date of function has been over. Hence, this Writ Petition has become infructuous. He further submitted that if he gives a fresh representation, seeking permission to conduct Pournami Pooja Yagam (Masi month), scheduled to be held on 22.02.2016 and other temple festivals in Arulmighu Drowpadhai Amman Aalayam, Kovilpathy, Karaikkal, that can be considered by the respondent police.

¶19

4.Considering the rival submission made on both sides, and on perusal of the typedset of papers, the petitioner, as a care taker of Arulmighu Drowpadhai Amman Aalayam, Karaikkal, has given a representation dated 07.01.2016, seeking permission to conduct Pournami Pooja Yagam in the month of Thai, scheduled to be held on 21.01.2016 and for police protection, which was rejected by the respondents, by order dated 22.01.2016 and further sought for permission, directing the 3^rd respondent to grant permission to conduct Pournami Pooja Yagam (Masi month), schedule to be held on 22.02.2016. In these circumstances, this Writ Petition is maintainable. The date of function has been over. No purpose will be served to set aside the impugned order.

¶20

5.Insofar as the 2^nd prayer is concerned, the prayer sought for, directing the respondent police to conduct Pournami Pooja Yagam (Masi Month) scheduled to be held on 22.2.2016 and other Temple Festivals in Arulmighu Drowpadhai Amman Aalayam, Kovilpathu, Karaikkal, the petitioner is directed to give a fresh representation to the 3^rd respondent. On such representation given by the petitioner afresh, the 3^rd respondent is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of one week, from the date of receipt of fresh representation.

¶21

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶22

mps

¶23

-s/dAssistant Registrar(CS-IV)

¶24

True Copy

¶25

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

1.The Inspector General of Police, Puducherry, Puducherry.

¶29

2.The Superintendent of Police, Karaikkal, Karaikkal Taluk and District.

¶30

3.The Town Circle Inspector of Police, Karaikkal,Puducherry.

¶31

- 1 cc to M/s.V.Kasinathabharathi, Advocate SR 9498

¶32

ak(co)
prk16/2 W.P.No.5063 of 2016&
WMP.Nos.4409 & 4410 of 2016

¶33

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

V.N.Kumar @ Senkuttuvan v. The Inspector General of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.N.Kumar @ Senkuttuvan v. The Inspector General of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Natarajan

Mr.D.Raman Vs the Superintendent of Police

Kuppusamy Gounder Vs State by

V.S.Prabhu Vs the Superintendent of Police

K.Saravana Kumar Vs State Rep by Its

Kalavathy Vs R.Palani