Allowed

V.Sakthi v. The District Collector

Madras HC8 Jan 2016WP/679/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted a writ of certiorari and mandamus quashing the police rejection of permission for a Hanuman procession, directing the respondent to grant permission subject to regulations on time and route, while noting the petitioner's lack of notice.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was set aside, and the 4th respondent was directed to grant adequate permission for the procession subject to conditions regarding timing and route.

V.Sakthi Vs The District Collector — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 08.01.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTIC M.M. SUNDRESH

¶5

V. Sakthi ..Petitioner
Vs.
1. The District Collector,
Vellore, Vellore District.
2. The Sub Collector,
Thirupathur,
Vellore District.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Vellore, Vellore District.
4. The Inspector of Police,
Town Police Station,
Thirupathur,
Vellore District. ..Respondents
Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call
for the entire records in pursuant to the rejection order issued
by the 4 th respondent dated 18.12.2015 and quash the same and
direct the 4 th respondent to grant permission for the peaceful
yathra of Sri Anjaneyar Idol in the specified root on 11.01.2016.

¶6

The petitioner made a representation on 17.12.2015 to the 4^th respondent seeking permission to take the statue of Lord Hanuman in a procession through a specified route and also to perform "Annadhanam". However, the permission sought was rejected by the 4^th respondent stating that there is likelihood

¶7

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

¶8

of law and order problem, in the event of such a procession being conducted; that an order passed under Section 30(2) of Tamil Nadu Police Act was in force and that the place, where the statue is proposed to be kept, though temporarily, belongs to the Municipality, for which no permission has been obtained. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this writ petition.

¶9

As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, all the three reasons stated in the impugned order, for rejecting the request of the petitioner, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. What the petitioner proposes to do is to keep the statue of Lord Hanuman, in the proposed place, for a specified period of time, which timeperiod can be regulated by the 4^th respondent. Likewise, the timing of the procession and the route through which the procession is to be taken, can also be regulated by the 4^th respondent. Mere likelihood of law and order problem cannot be a ground to reject the request made by the petitioner, in the absence of any material to substantiate the same. Further, the fact that an order under Section 30(2) of Tamil Nadu Police Act is in force cannot be a bar for the conduct of the procession. At best, it can only be regulatory. Moreover, the petitioner has not been put on notice regarding the rejection of his request.

¶10

Hence, for all the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order is set aside. The 4^th respondent is directed to give adequate permission to the petitioner to carry on with the procession, subject to the conditions to be imposed by the 4^th respondent, including with regard to the timing of the procession and the route in which the procession is to be taken. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Connected W.M.P. is closed.

¶11

nv s/dAssistant Registrar(CCC)

¶12

True Copy

¶13

Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1. The District Collector, Vellore, Vellore District.

¶14

The Sub Collector, Thirupathur, Vellore District.

¶15

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

¶16

The Superintendent of Police, Vellore, Vellore District.

¶17

The Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, Thirupathur, Vellore District.

¶18

1 cc to Mr.M.Sathish Kumar, Advocate SR 1647 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.1826 (19.05.2016)

¶19

lrs(co) prk8/1

¶20

W.P. NO. 679 of 2016

¶21

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

V.Sakthi v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Sakthi v. The District Collector

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

R.Murugamalai Vs Union of India

Krishnaveni Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

R.Kalaichandran Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

S.Saruvagan Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

R.N.Durai, Vs The Inspector of Police (L&O)

M/S.P.K.Hospitality Services Vs Airports Authority of India