Partly allowed

Subramanian v. the District Collector

Madras HC8 Mar 2017WP(MD)/4021/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition praying for permission and police protection to conduct Jallikattu. The Court allowed the petition in part, directing the District Collector to dispose of a pending representation within two days.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition allowed in part; First respondent directed to consider the representation dated 04.03.2017 and dispose of the same within two days without costs.

Subramanian Vs the District Collector — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.03.2017 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM and

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.AUTHINATHAN

¶5

W.P(MD)No.4021 of 2017

¶6

Subramanian .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.The District Collector, Office of the District collector, Pudukottai District.

¶9

2.The Superintendent of Police, Pudukottai, Pudukottai District.

¶10

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,

¶11

Illupur, Pudukottai District.

¶12

4.The Tahsildar, Illupur Taluk, Pudukottai District. .. Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to give permission and sufficient police protection to conduct “Jallikattu” to be held on 19.03.2017 at Periya Kurumbapatti, Kattakudi Panchayat, Illupur Taluk, Pudukkottai District by considering the petitioner's representation dated 04.03.2017.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sekar

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen, Additional Government Pleader.

¶16

ORDER

¶17

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

¶18

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 Jallikattu in the place mentioned in the petition, by way of issuing a writ of mandamus.

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen, learned Additional Government Pleader, has taken notice for the respondents.

¶20

¶21

3.It is seen from the records that on 04.03.2017 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.

¶22

4.In fine, this writ petition is allowed in part without costs and the first respondent is directed to look into the representation dated 04.03.2017 and dispose of the same within a period of two days.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶25

/True Copy/

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

¶28

1.The District Collector,
Office of the District collector, Pudukottai District.
2.The Superintendent of Police, Pudukottai, Pudukottai District.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Illupur, Pudukottai District.
4.The Tahsildar, Illupur Taluk, Pudukottai District.
+1cc to Mr.S.Sekar, Advocate, SR No.13427
+1cc to Special Government Pleader, SR No.13481

¶29

	ORDER	MADE IN
	W.P(MD)No.4021	of 2017
	08	.03.2017
smn
MS/RSK/SAR-3/10.03.2017/2P.7c

¶30

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

Subramanian v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subramanian v. the District Collector

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

Dr. T. Sam Elango Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

K.Princy, Vs the Superintendent of Police

Muthiah, Vs Tahsildar

Star Model Matriculation Vs the Commissioner of Town and

Balagurusamy Vs the District Collector

Susila, Vs the District Collector