Allowed

P.Murugan v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC16 Mar 2017WP(MD)/3253/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order rejecting permission for a kabadi tournament, alleging improper law and order grounds without factual basis. The Court quashed the impugned order without cost and directed the respondent to consider the application afresh.

What did the court decide?

Writ allowed; Impugned order quashed; Permission application disposed of afresh within two days.

P.Murugan Vs the Superintendent of Police — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 16.03.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM

¶6

and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.AUTHINATHAN

¶7

W.P(MD) No.3253 of 2017

P.Murugan

... Petitioner

-vs-

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

¶12

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Seranmahadevi Division, Tirunelveli District.

¶13

3.The Sub Inspector of Police, Veeravanallur Police Station, Tirunelveli District,

¶14

Tirunelveli.

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to impugned order passed by the 2nd Respondent in Na.Ka.No.17/Se.Mu.Aa/Ka.Thu.Ka/Serai/2017 dated 20.02.2017 and quash the same as illegal consequently direct the Respondents to grant permission to conduct Kabadi tournament schedule to be held on (*)18.03.2017 from 6.PM to 10 A.M at Alagappapuram Village (Back Side of Bus Stand) Seranmahadevi Taluk, Tirunelveli District based on the Petitioner's representation dated 07.03.2017. [Prayer amended vide Court Order dt.09/03/17 in WMP(MD)3222/17].

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sundarapandian

¶18

For Respondents : Mr.M.Govindan

¶19

Special Government Pleader

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

[Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM, J.]

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records relating to the order dated 20.02.2017 passed by the second respondent in

¶23

¶24

Na.Ka.No.17/Se.Mu.Aa/Ka.Thu.Ka/Serai/2017 and quash the same by way of issuing a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus.

¶25

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the representation given by the petitioner has been simply rejected by the second respondent on the ground of law and order problem and further, the occurrence mentioned by the second respondent has not happened in the village mentioned in the petition. Under the said circumstances, the present Writ Petition has been filed for getting the relief sought therein.

¶26

3.It is seen from the records that the second respondent has rejected the representation given by the petitioner by way of passing the impugned order mainly on the ground of law and order problem. Further, on the side of the second respondent it is stated that an occurrence has taken place in a nearby village. Under the said circumstances, tension has been prevailing.

¶27

4.Considering the fact that kabadi tournament mentioned in the petition is going to be held in a different village and also considering that the reason given by the second respondent for rejecting the representation cannot be accepted, this Court is inclined to pass the following order.

¶28

5.In fine, this Writ Petition is allowed without cost. The order dated 20.02.2017 passed in Na.Ka.No.17/Se.Mu.Aa/ Ka.Thu.Ka/Serai/2017 by the second respondent is quashed. The second respondent is directed to consider the representation given by the petitioner afresh and dispose of the same within a period of two days.

¶29

Sd/

¶30

Assistant Registrar(C.O.)

¶31

/True Copy/

¶32

Sub Assistant Registrar.

¶33

¶34

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

¶35

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Seranmahadevi Division, Tirunelveli District.

¶36

3.The Sub Inspector of Police, Veeravanallur Police Station, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. +1CC to M/S.S.Sundara Pandian,Advocate, SR.No. 15364

¶37

W.P(MD) No.3253 of 2017 16.03.2017

¶38

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

¶39

¶40

AM/SKN RSK/SAR-3/17.03.2017/2P/5C

P.Murugan v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Murugan 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

R.Anandhakumar Vs the Superintendent of Police

Narayanan Vs the Superintendent of Police

M.Varadharajan Vs the Superintendent of Police

Ravichandran Vs the Disdtrict Collector

M.Nallathambi, Vs the Commissioner

Govindaraju, Vs the District Collector