Disposed

Rt.Rev.Bishop Dr.M.Prakash v. The Superintendent of Police

Madras HC12 Jan 2016WP/74/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition wherein the petitioner sought permission to conduct a vision camp and festival. The court partially granted the prayer, allowing the event on different dates (Jan 23-24, 2016) subject to regulatory conditions, while noting that Section 41-A is regulatory only.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to conduct vision camp and festival on 23.01.2016 and 24.01.2016, subject to conditions and timings imposed by respondents.

Rt.Rev.Bishop Dr.M.Prakash Vs The Superintendent of… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 12.01.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH

¶5

W.P.No.74 of 2016

¶6

Rt. Rev. Bishop Dr.M.Prakash .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs -

¶8

1. The Superintendent of Police, O/o.Superintendent of Police, Erode, Erode distirct, 2. The District Superintendent of Police Campus, O/o.Superintendent of Police Campus, Erode, Erode District, 3. The Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, Erode, Erode District. 4. Erode Makkal Nalam Naduvor Sangham, rep.by its Secretary, V.Deviprasath, aged 52 years, S/o.Late Varadharajan, 151, Cuttchery Street, Erode – 628 001. .. Respondents

¶9

Respondent No.4 is impleaded as a party to this writ petition as per order dated 12.1.2016 in W.M.P.No.1060 of 2016.

¶10

Prayer:- Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to permit the petitioner to conduct the 41 New vision Camp and Festival of 2016 to be conducted between 15.01.2016 to 17.01.2016 at CSI (Church of South India) Boys Higher Secondary School Ground, Brough Church, Erode, Erode District.

¶11

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

¶12

Petitioner : Mr.Dalit Tigher C.Ponnusamy For Respondents : Mr.S.T.S.Moorthy,Govt.Pleader for Mrs.P.Rajalakshmi, Govt.Advocate for RR.1 to 3 Mr.K.Ramasamy for R4

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

The petitioner sought for permission to conduct new vision camp and festival of 2016 between 15.1.2016 to 17.1.2016 at CSI (Church of South India) Boys Higher Secondary School Ground, Brough Church, Erode, Erode District. As the said permission sought for is kept pending, though the dates are nearing, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶15

Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been conducting the above said programme and function in the very same place over the years. Therefore, there cannot be any objection in the eye of law and the property has been compounded.

¶16

The learned Government Pleader, based upon the coutner affidavit filed by the 3^rd respondent, submitted that the property belongs to the Government in pursuant to the order passed in 2012 and though an appeal filed by the petitioner, the same is pending and there is no order in his faovur as of now. The permssion, if granted, would lead to law and order problem. The days of permission sought for by the petitioner between 15.1.2016 to 17.1.2016 would cover the pongal. There is an important temple nearby. The other group belonging to major community has been agitating this right to take over and use the place in question. The permission sought for by them has been rejected from time to time. Therefore, the petitioner alone cannot be given permission to conduct the said programme in the said place. There is a prohibitiroy order under Section 41-A of the Chennai City Police Act. Therefore, the writ petition will have to be dismissed.

¶17

There are two facts, which are not in dispute for the purpose of deciding this writ petition. The petitioner has been conducting the said programme and festival in the same place over the years. The property is also compounded, being adjacent to the school of the petitioner. Merely because yet another group raised certain objection the same cannot be a ground to reject the prayer sought for by the petitioner, especially, when it is being done continuously over the years. The manner in which the programme/ function has to be conducted can be regulated coupled with the dates and timings and is well within the jurisdiction of the official respondents. If there is any likelihood of law and order problem, adequate steps can be taken

¶18

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

¶19

by the official respondents. Section 41-A of the City Police Act can at best be regulatory, meaning thereby, there cannot be a total prohibition. However, this Court finds some force in the submission made by the learned Government Pleader. The period between 15.1.2016 to 17.1.2016 might lead to some possible conflict between general public of two different faiths in view of the nearness of the temple. Therefore, the petitioner is at liberty to conduct the vision camp and festival on 23.1.2016 and 24.1.2016, subject to the conditions that can be imposed by the official respondents, including the timing and other regulatory mesures. This Court is also of the considered view that the question as to whether the property is a Government property or not and the petitioner is in possession or not are not necessary for the purpose of considering the relief sought for in the writ petition. After all, what the petitioner wants is, to use the place for two days in a year.

¶20

A submission has been made by a counsel based upon an impleading petition in W.M.P.No.1060 of 2016 stating that all the citizens will have to be treated alike. The learned counsel for the impleading petitioner submitted that as and when a request is made they will have to be treated on the same line as that of the writ petitioner. This Court is not willing to go into the said issue at this stage. The said issue is not relevant for deciding the writ petition, as it has to be decided by the respondents and then this Court as and when it is required to be done so.

¶21

Accordingly the writ petition stands disposed of by directing the official respondents to give appropriate permission to the petitioner to conduct the vision camp and festival on 23.1.2016 and 24.1.2016 at the proposed place as sought for by the petitioner, subject to the conditions that can be imposed and the timings permitted by the official respondents.

¶22

The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.

¶23

-s/dAssistant Registrar(CSVII) True Copy

¶24

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶25

usk

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

The Superintendent of Police, O/o.Superintendent of Police, Erode, Erode distirct, 2. The District Superintendent of Police Campus, O/o.Superintendent of Police Campus, Erode, Erode District, 3. The Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, Erode, Erode District. +1 cc to Mr.Dalit Tiger C.Ponnusamy Advocate sr.2348 +1 cc to Mr.K.Ramasamy Advocate sr.2346 +1 cc to Government Pleader High Court Madras sr.2385 W.P.No.74 of 2016

¶29

aa12/01/2016

¶30

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

Rt.Rev.Bishop Dr.M.Prakash v. The Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rt.Rev.Bishop Dr.M.Prakash v. The Superintendent 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

Mrs.Maakali Vs the District Collector

N.Bhojan Vs The Collector of the

Mr. S.Paramasivam, Vs The Addl. Principal Secretary

G.Ranjithkumar, Vs The Inspector of Police

C.Prema Vs The District Collector

R.Nagaraj, Vs The Tahsildar