Partly allowed

Kds.Somasundaram, v. the District Collector

Madras HC10 Mar 2017WP(MD)/4142/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bench allowed the writ petition in part, directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 06.03.2017 regarding Jallikattu within two days without costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed in part; first respondent directed to consider and dispose of the representation dated 06.03.2017 within two days without costs.

Kds.Somasundaram, Vs the District Collector — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 10.03.2017 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.AUTHINATHAN

¶3

W.P(MD)No.4142 of 2017

¶4

KDS.Somasundaram .. Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

1.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector Office, Pudukkottai District.

¶7

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

¶8

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District.

¶9

4.The Tahsildar,

¶10

Illupur Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

¶11

5.The Inspector of Police, Annavasal Police Station, Pudukkottai District.

¶12

.. 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 24.03.2017 from 10.00 a.m to 5.00 pm at Keelakurichi Village, Illuppur Taluk, Pudukkottai District on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 06.03.2017 and pass such further or other orders.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.S.T.Sasidharan Tamilkani For Respondents : Mr.K.Guru, Additional Government Pleader.

¶15

ORDER

¶16

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

¶17

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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ mentioned in the petition, by way of issuing a writ of Mandamus.

¶18

¶19

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

¶20

3.It is seen from the records that on 06.03.2017 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.

¶21

4.In fine, this writ petition is allowed in part without costs and the first respondent is directed to look into the representation dated 06.03.2017 and dispose of the same within a period of two days.

¶22

sd/ Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶23

/True copy/

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

1.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector Office, Pudukkottai District.

¶27

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

¶28

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District.

¶29

4.The Tahsildar, Illupur Taluk, Pudukkottai District.

¶30

5.The Inspector of Police, Annavasal Police Station, Pudukkottai District.

¶31

+1CC TO SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER,SR.NO.14089 +1CC to M/S.Mr.S.T.Sasidharan Tamilkani, Advocate, SR.No.14123

¶32

W.P(MD)No.4142 of 2017 10.03.2017

¶33

JM/CM MSA/13.03.2017/2P/8C

¶34

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

Kds.Somasundaram, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kds.Somasundaram, 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

Vasanthi Vs the Inspector of Police

O.Ukirapandian Vs the Corporation of Madurai

S.Jothi Vs the District Collector

M.a.Joe Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

N.Mariyappan Vs the Executive Officer

J.K.Ramesh, S/O.Kasipandi Vs the Superintendent of Police