Allowed

T.Manoharan, v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC20 Jun 2017WP/15481/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought permission to conduct a cultural programme at a temple festival. The Court permitted the programme subject to specific conditions regarding the content of dances, songs, and political or communal neutrality.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to conduct the cultural programme subject to conditions prohibiting obscene content, double-meaning songs, and political/communal references.

T.Manoharan, Vs The Inspector of Police — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 20.06.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶5

W.P.No.15481 of 2017

¶6

T.Manoharan ... Petitioner

¶7

The Inspector of Police, Mannarkudi Police Station, Mannarkudi, Thiruvarur District. ... Respondent

¶8

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent authority to give police protection and permission to conduct cultural programme in Cherankulam Arulmigu Sree Maha Mariamman Temple festival, at Mannarkudi Taluk, Thiruvarur District on 26.06.2017 and 28.06.2017 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 14.06.2017.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sathishkumar For Respondent : Mr.D.Vairamurthy Special Government Pleader O R D E R

¶10

Seeking permission to conduct cultural programme relating to Cherankulam Arulmigu Sree Maha Mariamman Temple festival, at Mannarkudi Taluk, Thiruvarur District, on 26.06.2017 and 28.06.2017, the petitioner addressed a representation dated 14.06.2017 to the respondent. As the same has not been considered, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶11

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

¶12

Since this Court, on earlier occasions, has not granted permission to conduct dance programme on the ground that obscene movements are involved in the dance performances, now, learned counsel for the petitioner gave an assurance that no such obscene dance movements will be there in the cultural programme to be conducted in the temple festival scheduled to be held on

¶13

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

¶14

26.06.2017 and 28.06.2017 and whatever conditions this Court imposes for conducting the cultural programme, the same will be adhered to by the petitioner in letter and spirit.

¶15

In view of the assurance so given by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of, by permitting the petitioner to conduct cultural programme in Mannarkudi Taluk, Thiruvarur District, relating to the temple festival of Cherankulam Arulmigu Sree Maha Mariamman Temple, at Thiruvarur District, scheduled to be held on 26.06.2017 and 28.06.2017, with the following conditions:-

¶16

(a) The cultural programme in connection with the Cherankulam Arulmigu Sree Maha Mariamman Temple festival, at Thiruvarur District, shall be conducted on 26.06.2017 and 28.06.2017 between 06.00 p.m. and 11.00 p.m.

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

(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

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

No costs.

¶26

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶27

//True Copy//

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

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

¶30

KM To

¶31

The Inspector of Police, Mannarkudi Police Station, Mannarkudi, Thiruvarur District.

¶32

+1cc to Mr.A.Sathish Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.43186 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.43448

¶33

W.P.No.15481 of 2017 MSM(CO) CA(21/06/2017)

¶34

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

T.Manoharan, v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Manoharan, 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

U.B.Raju, Aged 38 Years, Vs State Rep. by

Murugan, M//a 42 Years, Vs the Inspector of Police

Yohalakshmi Sukumaran, Vs G.Seenu

Villavarayan B.Antony Joseph, Vs the Union Territory of

Subramaniam Aged 65 Yrs Vs the Inspector of Police

Sasikumar, M/a 41 Years, Vs the State Rep by Its