Partly allowed

S.Ponkrishnan, v. State Rep. by

Madras HC23 Mar 2017WP(MD)/4927/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a writ petition in part, directing the respondent police to consider an unconsidered representation dated 04.03.2017 and dispose of it within two days to permit a cultural function.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed in part; the respondent is directed to look into the representation dated 04.03.2017 and dispose of the same within two days.

S.Ponkrishnan, Vs State Rep. by — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 23.03.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

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

¶6

W.P(MD)No.4927 of 2017

S.Ponkrishnan

.. Petitioner

Vs.

State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Nazareth Police Station, Thoothukudi District.

¶11

.. Respondent

¶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 respondent to permit the petitioner to conduct the cultural function viz., Adal Padal during the temple festival of “Arulmighu Muthumalaiamman Temple”, 12South Street Village, Agappaikulam, Nazareth, Thoothukudi District on 24.05.2017 between 7.00 P.M. to 12.00 P.M. and further direct the respondent to give adequate police protection for the above said programme.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Veilmuthu

¶14

For Respondent : 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 respondent to give necessary permission for conducting Adalpadal programme in the place mentioned therein, by way of issuing a Writ of Mandamus.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

4.In fine, this Writ Petition is allowed in part without

¶21

¶22

costs and the 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/Assistant Registrar (CS-I)

¶24

/True Copy/

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

¶27

The Inspector of Police, Nazareth Police Station, Thoothukudi District. + 1 CC TO Mr.K.VEILMUTHU, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 17095 + 1 CC TO SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER IN SR No. 17616 PS

¶28

TE/SV-MMS/SAR-III : 27/03/2017 : 2P/4C

¶29

ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.4927 of 2017 23.03.2017

¶30

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

S.Ponkrishnan, v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Ponkrishnan, v. State Rep. by

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

V.Gopalsamy, Vs the Secretary

M.Thirupathi Vs the Principal Chief

V.Ramadass, Vs the State Commissioner of

Sathishkumar Vs the District Collector

G.Gopalsamy Vs the District Collector

P.Thirumoorthy Vs the District Collector