Dismissed

Hindu Munnetra Kazhagam, v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC6 Oct 2017WP(MD)/18593/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging permission granted to a political party to conduct a conference, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court examined the matter. Finding that the third respondent had already obtained necessary permission from a competent authority with specific conditions, the Court closed the petition as nothing remained for adjudication.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition and connected Miscellaneous Petition were closed as nothing survives for adjudication.

Hindu Munnetra Kazhagam, Vs the Superintendent… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 06.10.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE W.P.(MD)No.18593 of 2017

¶8

and

¶9

W.M.P.(MD)No.14984 of 2017

¶10

Hindu Munnetra Kazhagam, Represented by its Founder, K.Gopinath : Petitioner

¶11

-Vs-

¶12

1.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶13

2.The Inspector of Police, Y.Othakadai Police Station,

¶14

Madurai District.

¶15

3.The Popular Front of India, Madurai Head Office, No.142, North Veli Street, Near Moon Auto Consultancy, Simmakkal, Madurai-625 001. : Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to forbear the third respondent from conducting pary conference on 07.10.2017 in the ground, situating in Opposite to the Madurai Agriculture College, Y.Othakadai, Madurai District based on the petitioner's representation dated 02.10.2017.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Gopinath, Party-in-Person For Respondents 1&2 : Mr.B.Pugalendhi, Additional Advocate General, Assisted by, Mr.M.Govindan, Special Government Pleader For Respondent No.3 : Mr.S.AS.Alaudeen https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

O R D E R

[Order of the Court was made by M.VENUGOPAL, J.]

¶22

Mr.B.Pugalendhi, Learned Additional Advocate General, takes notice for the Respondents 1 and 2. Mr.S.AS.Alaudeen, learned Counsel, takes notice for the Respondent No.3.

¶23

The Petitioner/Kazhagam has preferred the instant Writ Petition before this Court seeking to direct the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to forbear the Respondent No.3 from conducting party conference on 07.10.2017 in the ground, situated opposite to Madurai Agriculture College, Y.Othakadai, Madurai District, based on his representation dated 02.10.2017.

¶24

This Court has heard the Petitioner's Founder K.Gopinath, who appears in person and also the Learned Additional Advocate General for the Respondents 1 and 2 and the Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.3.

¶25

According to the Petitioner, the third Respondent is to conduct its party conference on 07.10.2017 in the ground situated opposite to Madurai Agriculture College, Y.Othakadai, Madurai District. The stand of the Petitioner is that the place is a highly traffic and sensitive one and if permission is granted to the third Respondent to conduct the conference in question, then the free flow of traffic will be affected by huge extent. Apart from that, in the said conference to be conducted on 07.10.2017, more than 20,000 persons are expected to gather and if the permission is accorded, then it would cause hindrance to the general public.

¶26

It is not in dispute that the Petitioner/Kazhagam made a representation to the second Respondent on 02.10.2017 and requested the second Respondent/Inspector of Police, Y.Othakadai Police Station, Madurai District, not to grant any permission to the party conference of the third Respondent.

¶27

The grievance of the Petitioner is that the Respondents 1 and 2 had not considered the representation dated 02.10.2017 nor taken any appropriate action for ensuring law and order. Therefore, the Petitioner is perforced to file the present Writ Petition.

¶28

At this juncture, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the Respondents 1 and 2 brings it to the notice of this Court that based on the representation of the third Respondent dated 21.09.2017, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Oomachikulam Sub-Division, through her proceedings dated 04.10.2017, had granted permission to the third Respondent to conduct the conference in question on 07.10.2017 imposing as many as 19 conditions.

¶29

In view of the fact that the third Respondent was granted https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ with necessary permission by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Oomachikulam Sub-Division, as per proceedings dated 04.10.2017, to

¶30

¶31

conduct the conference in question on 07.10.2017, this Court closes the present Writ Petition as nothing survives for adjudication. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.

¶32

Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶33

/True Copy/

¶34

Sub Assistant Registrar To

¶35

1.The Superintendent of Police,

¶36

Madurai District, Madurai.

¶37

2.The Inspector of Police,

¶38

Y.Othakadai Police Station,

¶39

Madurai District.

¶40

+1cc to THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER in SR. No.82089

¶41

SML

¶42

JS/SKN.RSK/SAR.1/24.10.2017/3P-4C

¶43

Order made in W.P.(MD)No.18593 of 2017 Dated: 06.10.2017

¶44

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

Hindu Munnetra Kazhagam, v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hindu Munnetra Kazhagam, 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

S.Sankar, Vs the Secy., Dept. of Commercial

T.T.v.Dinakaran, Vs Ramkumar Adityan

Ramasubramanian Vs the District Collector

Vaiyapurai Vs Director

Kongu Educational Trust, Vs the Commissioner

A.Kirubanithi, S/O.Arumuga Vs the Secretary to Government