Allowed

P.Shanmugam, S/o.Palanisamy v. The Superintendent of Police

Madras HC10 May 2017WP/12409/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition seeking permission to conduct a cultural programme during a temple festival. It held that mere apprehension is insufficient for rejection and granted permission subject to conditions regarding time, content, and harmony.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to conduct the cultural programme subject to eight specific conditions regarding time limits, content restrictions, and regulatory compliance.

P.Shanmugam, S/o.Palanisamy Vs The… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 10.05.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶5

W.P.No.12409 of 2017

¶6

P.Shanmugam .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Erode District,
Erode and another.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Kodumudi Police Station,
Kodumudi,
Erode District. .. Respondents

¶8

Prayer :Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 05.05.2017 and give permission to conduct the dance programme in the event of Arulmegu Sri Mariamman Koil temple festival on 22.05.2017 at Velayathampalayam, Rasampalayam Post, Kodumudi Via, Erode District.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.K.T.S.Sivakumar For Respondent : Mr.P.Sanjay Gandhi,

¶10

Additional Government Pleader.

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

Seeking permission to conduct cultural programme in the event of Arulmegu Sri Mariamman Koil temple festival at Velayathampalayam, Rasampalayam Post, Kodumudi Via, Erode District, on 22.05.2017, the petitioner made a representation dated 05.05.2017 to the respondents. As the same has not been considered, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶13

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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 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 in the event of Arulmegu Sri Mariamman Koil temple festival at Velayathampalayam, Rasampalayam Post, Kodumudi Via, Erode District, on 22.05.2017, however, with the following conditions:-

¶17

(a) The cultural programme in connection with in the event of Arulmegu Sri Mariamman Koil temple festival at Velayathampalayam, Rasampalayam Post, Kodumudi Via, Erode District,, shall be conducted on 22.05.2017 between 06.00 p.m. and 11.00 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

¶20

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

¶21

(e) No flex boards in support of any political party or communal leader, shall be erected at the premises of the programme.

¶22

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

¶23

(g) If there is 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 forthwith; and

¶24

(h) Similarly, the police is directed to stop the dance programme, if it is played beyond the permitted time limit.

¶25

(i) The respondents are directed to issue necessary permission, incorporating the above conditions.

No costs.

Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

gya/ars

¶31

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

¶32

To
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Erode District,
Erode and another.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Kodumudi Police Station,
Kodumudi,
Erode District.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.K.T.S.Siva kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.37289
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.37221
WP.No.12409 of 2017
KS(CO)
RS(15/05/2017)

¶33

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

P.Shanmugam, S/o.Palanisamy v. The Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Shanmugam, S/o.Palanisamy 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

K.Dayanand Vs K.Hemavathi

debts of Mr.S.Ramachandran Vs

N.Sekar Vs a.Shanmugam

P.Suseela Vs P.Pradeesh Kumar

M/s.Cotton House Vs New Cotton House

P.Sukumar Vs The Revenue Divisional