Allowed

R.Rajkumar, 55 Yrs v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC27 Feb 2018CRL OP/5912/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought permission to conduct a cultural programme for a temple festival. The Court allowed the petition, permitting the event on specified conditions regarding timing, content, and conduct to ensure public order and harmony.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to conduct the cultural programme on 07.03.2018 subject to conditions regarding timing, content, and conduct.

R.Rajkumar, 55 Yrs Vs the Superintendent of Police — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 27.02.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶5

Crl.OP.No.5912 of 2018

¶6

R.Rajkumar .. Petitioner

¶7

¶8

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

¶9

The Inspector of Police,
Panamarathupatty Police Station,
Salem District. .. Respondents

¶10

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.PC, praying to direct the 2nd respondent to give the bandobust and permission to conduct the cultural programme on 07.03.2018 in the event of Sri Mahamariamman Koil, Thittampatti Post, Salem District.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.T.P.Pappaiah Dharmarajan

¶12

For Respondents : Mr.C.Raghavan Government Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R

¶13

Seeking permission to conduct cultural programme in the event of Sri Mahamariamman Koil, Thittampatti Post, Salem District, the petitioner made a representation dated 16.02.2018 to the 2nd respondent. As the same has not been considered, the present criminal original petition has been filed.

¶14

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents.

¶15

instructions, would submit that there is likelihood of arising law and order problem.

¶16

A mere apprehension cannot be a ground to reject the representation. There is absolutely no material before this Court to hold that there will be a law and order problem in the event of permission being granted. In such view of the matter,

¶17

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

¶18

the criminal original petition is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to conduct cultural programme , however, with the following conditions:-

¶19

(a) The cultural programme in connection with the event of Sri Mahamariamman Koil, Thittampatti Post, Salem District, shall be conducted on 07.03.2018 between 06.00 p.m. and 11.00 p.m.

¶20

(b)There should not be any kind of obscene dance or vulgar dialogues during the performance, by anyone of the participants.

¶21

¶22

(d) No dance or songs, touching upon any political party or religion or community or caste shall be played.

¶23

(e) No flex boards in support of any political party or communal leader, shall be erected at the premises of the programme.

¶24

(f) The function shall not affect either religious or communal harmony and shall be conducted without any discrimination based on caste.

¶25

(g) If there is violation of any one of the conditions imposed, the concerned police officer is at liberty to take necessary action, as per law and stop such performance forthwith; and

¶26

(h) Similarly, the police is directed to stop the dance programme, if it is played beyond the permitted time limit.

¶27

(i) The 2nd respondent is directed to issue necessary protection and permission, incorporating the above conditions.

¶28

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-V) //True Copy//

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

The Superintendent of Police,
Salem District, Salem.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Panamarathupatty Police Station,
Salem District.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
1 cc to Mr. T. Pappaiah Dharmarajan, Advocate Sr.14962
Crl.OP.No.5912 of 2018
(CS-V)
EU(05/03/2018 )

¶34

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

R.Rajkumar, 55 Yrs v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Rajkumar, 55 Yrs 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

M.Boomadevi, F/a 42 Yrs Vs State Rep by

Nagapoosanammal, Aged 60 Yrs Vs the Inspector of Police

R.Balamurugan, Vs the Inspector of Police

The State Rep by Its, Vs the E.I.T.A. India Limited

R.Jawahar, Aged 26 Years, Vs the Inspector of Police

Giridhar (Male 25 Years) Vs the State Represented by