Allowed

K.Annamalai, S/O. Kayambu, v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC6 Mar 2017WP(MD)/3901/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking permission and police protection for an Adalum Padalum dance program under Article 226. The court allowed the petition in part and directed the second respondent to dispose of the representation within two days.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation within two days.

K.Annamalai, S/O. Kayambu, Vs the… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 06.03.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.AUTHINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.3901 of 2017

K.Annamalai

.. Petitioner

Vs.

The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai District.

¶11

The Inspector of Police, Ponnamaravathi Police Station, Ponnamaravathi, Pudukkottai District. .. Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to grant permission and give police protection to conduct the Adalum Padalum dance program at about 7.00pm to 11.00pm on 09.03.2017 in pursuance to the festival of Arulmighu Sri Masiperiyannaswamy, Kamatchiamman Kovil situated in Keeranur, Tiruppur Village, Pudukkottai District on considering the petitioner's representation dated 02.03.2017 and pass such further or other orders.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Gnanagurunathan For Respondents : Mr.M.Govindan, Special Government Pleader.

¶14

ORDER

¶15

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

¶16

This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents to give necessary permission for conducting Adalpadal programme in the place mentioned in the petition, by way of issuing a writ of mandamus.

¶17

2.Mr.M.Govindan, learned Special Government Pleader, has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ taken notice for the respondents.

¶18

¶19

3.It is seen from the records that on 02.03.2017 a representation has been given, but the same has not been considered. Under the said circumstances, this Court is inclined to pass the following order.

¶20

4.In fine, this writ petition is allowed in part without costs and the second respondent is directed to look into the representation dated 02.03.2017 and dispose of the same within a period of two days.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

/TRUE COPY/

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

The Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai District.

¶27

The Inspector of Police, Ponnamaravathi Police Station, Ponnamaravathi,

¶28

Pudukkottai District.

¶29

+1 cc to MR.M.Gnanagurunathan, ADVOCATE, SR NO:12715

¶30

ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.3901 of 2017 06.03.2017

¶31

¶32

MKV-SV-MMS-SAR 3/7.3.2017/2P-4C

¶33

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

K.Annamalai, S/O. Kayambu, v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Annamalai, S/O. Kayambu, 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

Anthony Raj Vs the District Collector

N.Raja, S/O.Natarajan Vs the Superintendent of Police

S.Murugesan Vs the Superintendent of Police