Allowed

M.Murugan, v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC12 May 2017WP/12619/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the respondent's objection based on mere apprehension of law and order, allowing the petitioner's writ petition to conduct a cultural programme at a temple festival. The permission was granted subject to eight specific conditions regarding timing, content, political neutrality, and conduct.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; petitioner permitted to conduct cultural programme on 24.05.2017 subject to eight specific conditions; respondent directed to issue permission incorporating such conditions.

M.Murugan, Vs The Inspector of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 12.05.2017

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM

W.P.No.12619 of 2017

M.Murugan

The Inspector of Police, Bargur Police Station, Bargur, Krishnagiri District. .. Respondent

¶8

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to grant permission to the petitioner to conduct temple festival by fitting sound system and cultural program in Ponnathur Arulmigu Sree Mariamman Temple at Bargur Taluk, Krishnagiri District and to conduct the temple function 24.05.2017 by considering petitioner's representation dated 08.05.2017.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sathishkumar

¶10

For Respondent : Mr.A.N.Thambidurai

¶11

Special Government Pleader

¶12

Seeking permission to conduct cultural programme in the event of temple festival in Ponnathur Arulmigu Sree Mariamman Temple at Bargur Taluk, Krishnagiri District, the petitioner made a representation dated 08.05.2017 to the respondent. 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 Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

¶14

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

¶15

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,

¶16

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

¶17

the writ petition is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to conduct cultural programme in the event of temple festival in Ponnathur Arulmigu Sree Mariamman Temple at Bargur Taluk, Krishnagiri District, however, with the following conditions:-

¶18

(a) The cultural programme in connection with in the event of temple festival in Ponnathur Arulmigu Sree Mariamman Temple at Bargur Taluk, Krishnagiri District, shall be conducted on 24.05.2017 between 06.00 p.m. and 11.00 p.m.

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

(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

¶25

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

¶26

(i) The respondent is directed to issue necessary permission, incorporating the above conditions.

¶27

No costs.

¶28

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶29

smi

¶30

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

¶31

¶32

The Inspector of Police, Bargur Police Station, Bargur, Krishnagiri District.

¶33

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶34

+1 cc to Mr.A.Sathish kumar Advocate sr 37301
WP.No.12619 of 2017
aa12/05/2017

¶35

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

M.Murugan, v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Murugan, 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

Kothandaraman, Vs The District Collector

S.S.Manamagil Mandram, Vs The Superintendent of Police

T.Chitra, Vs The District Collector

M.Kesavan, S/o.Manickam Vs The Inspector of Police

P.Krishnan, Vs The Inspector of Police

A.Kabilan, S/o.Aranganathan Vs The Inspector of Police