Allowed

V.Ariraj Pillai, v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC21 Mar 2017WP(MD)/4694/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 praying for a direction to the second respondent to grant permission for the Aadal Padal cultural event. The court allowed the petition in part, directing the respondent to consider the representation within two days.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to look into the representation dated 09.03.2017 and dispose of it within two days.

V.Ariraj Pillai, Vs the Superintendent of Police — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21.03.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

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

¶5

W.P(MD)No.4694 of 2017

¶6

V.Ariraj Pillai .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

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

¶9

2.The Inspector of Police,

¶10

Battalagundu Police Station,

¶11

Dindigul 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 second respondent to grant permission and protection for cultural event namely Aadal Padal scheduled to be held on 29.03.2017 at night in connection with “Panguni Festival” in Arulmigu Sree Kaaliamman and Bagavathi Amman Kovil at M.Alagapuri, Mallanampatti (post), Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 09.03.2017.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.J.M.Jeyakarthik For Respondents : Mr.M.Govindan, Special 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 Adalpadal programme in the place mentioned therein, by way of issuing a writ of mandamus.

¶18

2.Mr.M.Govindan, learned Special Government Pleader, has taken notice for the respondents.

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.It is seen from the records that on 09.03.2017 a representation has been given, but the same has not been

¶20

¶21

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 second respondent is directed to look into the representation dated 09.03.2017 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 Superintendent of Police, Dindigul,

¶29

Dindigul District.

¶30

2.The Inspector of Police,

¶31

Battalagundu Police Station,

¶32

Dindigul District.

¶33

+1cc to M/S.M.Jayanthaa,Advocate,SR.16367

¶34

ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.4694 of 2017

¶35

¶36

KK-SVMMS-SAR4-23.03.2017-2P-4C

¶37

21.03.2017

¶38

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

V.Ariraj Pillai, v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Ariraj Pillai, 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

Asaithambi Vs the Inspector of Police

Alagupandi Vs the District Collector

Nainar Mohammed Vs the Special Officer / B.Do

D.S.Selvam, Vs the District Collector

K.Rajan Vs the District Collector

T.Rajarathinam Vs the Commissioner