Allowed

K.Kalimuthu, v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC24 Mar 2017WP(MD)/5100/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench allowed a writ petition in part under Article 226 of the Constitution, directing the Superintendent of Police to consider a pending representation regarding permission for the Panguni Pongal Festival and adal padal within two days.

What did the court decide?

The second respondent is directed to look into the representation dated 20.03.2017 and dispose of the same within two days.

K.Kalimuthu, Vs the Superintendent of Police — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 24.03.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM

¶5

and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.AUTHINATHAN

¶7

W.P(MD)No.5100 of 2017

K.Kalimuthu

.. Petitioner

Vs.

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

¶12

2.The Inspector of Police, Vanniyampatti Police Station, Vanniyampatti, Virudhunagar 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 second respondent to grant permission to conduct the Panguni Pongal Festival as well as other programmes and also to conduct the Aadal Padal on 09.04.2017 and 10.04.2017 (two days) in Sri Mariamman Kovil at Inam Karisalkulam, Srivilliputhur Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Jeya Prakash

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.M.Govindan, Special 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 Panguni Pongal Festival as well as Adalpadal programme in the place mentioned therein, by way of issuing a writ of mandamus.

¶19

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

¶20

3.It is seen from the records that on 20.03.2017 a representation has been given, but the same has not been considered. Under the said circumstances, this Court is inclined https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to pass the following order.

¶21

¶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 20.03.2017 and dispose of the same within a period of two days.

¶23

Sd/Assistant Registrar(AS)

¶24

/True Copy/

¶25

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶26

¶27

1.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.
2.The Inspector of Police, Vanniyampatti Police Station, Vanniyampatti, Virudhunagar District.
+One cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR.No.18143
+One cc to Mr.C.Jeyaprakash, Advocate, SR.No.17422
ps/smn RL/5C/2P/RR/SAR4/28.3.2017
ORDER W.P(MD)No.5100 24 cservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/	MADE IN of 2017 .03.2017

¶28

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

K.Kalimuthu, v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Kalimuthu, 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

Sathishkumar Vs the District Collector

G.Gopalsamy Vs the District Collector

P.Thirumoorthy Vs the District Collector

E.M.Somasundaram Vs the Director

S.Muthukumr, S/O.S.Shanmugavel Vs v.Paramanantham

V.Chandran Asari, Vs the Superintendent of Police