Allowed

S.Vadivelu v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC7 Mar 2017WP(MD)/3939/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench allowed the writ petition in part. It directed the second respondent to examine the pending representation dated 25.02.2017 regarding permission for the Adal Padal Dance Programme and dispose of it within two days without awarding costs to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed in part; second respondent directed to dispose of representation dated 25.02.2017 within two days.

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

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 07.03.2017 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.AUTHINATHAN

¶3

W.P(MD)No.3939 of 2017

¶4

S.Vadivelu .. Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

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

¶7

2.The Inspector of Police, Kallal Police Station, Sivagangai District. .. Respondents

¶8

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 to grant permission and necessary Police Protection to perform the cultural programme (i.e.,) Adal Padal Dance Programme on 09.03.2017 at 06.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m. in the festival of Arulmighu Sri Kunnamma Kalli Amman Thirukovil at Kallal, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Manikandan

¶10

For Respondents : Mr.K.Guru, Additional Government Pleader.

¶11

ORDER

¶12

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

¶13

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.

¶14

2.Mr.K.Guru, learned Additional Government Pleader, has taken notice for the respondents.

¶15

3.It is seen from the records that on 25.02.2017 a representation has been given to the respondents, but the same has not been considered. Under the said circumstances, this Court is inclined to pass the following order.

¶16

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

¶17

4.In fine, this writ petition is allowed in part without

¶18

¶19

costs and the second respondent is directed to look into the representation dated 25.02.2017 and dispose of the same within a period of two days.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶22

/True copy/

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

¶25

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

¶26

2.The Inspector of Police, Kallal Police Station, Sivagangai District.

¶27

+1 cc to M/s.V.Manikandan, Advocate in SR.No.13017 +1 cc to The Special Government Pleader in SR.No.12883

¶28

smn

¶29

CSL/PM-PN/SAR-III/08.03.2017 :2P/5C

¶30

ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.3939 of 2017 07.03.2017

¶31

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

S.Vadivelu v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Vadivelu 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

Johnsi Rani Vs the Superintendent of Police

P.Petchiammal Vs the Election Commissioner

S.Devadhas, Vs the District Collector

M.Rajendran, Vs the Superintendent of Police

A.Thilagam Vs the Chairman / the District

Krishnakumar Vs the Member Secretary/