Dismissed

Chokkar v. the Supperintendent of Police

Madras HC5 Feb 2018WA(MD)/171/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a Writ Appeal seeking to set aside an order dismissing a petition for permission to conduct temple poojas. The court held that the specific festival date had passed, leaving nothing for adjudication, but granted liberty to approach the court again for future festivals after the existing inter-parte decree was addressed.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal dismissed; liberty granted to submit fresh representation for conducting poojas on future dates pending consideration of final ex parte decree.

Chokkar Vs the Supperintendent of Police — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 05.02.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA

¶6

W.A(MD)No.171 of 2018 and C.M.P(MD)No.937 of 2018

¶7

Chokkar

¶8

: Appellant/Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

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

¶11

2.The Inspector of Police, Ambathurai Police Station, Dindigul District.

¶12

3.Vellaichamy 4.Malaichamy 5.Kathiresan : Respondents/Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 15.12.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P(MD)No.22684 of 2017 on the file of this Court.

¶14

Prayer in WP(MD). 22684/ 2017 :

¶15

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents herein to give the permission and police protection to conduct Tamil Margazhi Month lighting Pooja held at Sri Poovanavar Vinayagar, Sri Pathirakaliyamman, Sri Mariyamman and Sri Navalingeshwarar Temple, A.Vellodu Village, V.Kallupatti West, Dindigul District based upon the Petitioners representation dated 04.12.2017.

¶16

For Appellant : Mr.A.S.Vaigunth, For Mr.K.Kulanthai Vikram

¶17

For Respondents 1&2 : Mr.M.Murugan, Government Advocate

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

[Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.] https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

By consent, this Writ Appeal is taken up for final disposal.

¶21

¶22

Mr.M.Murugan, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the first and second respondents.

¶23

The appellant is the writ petitioner and he has filed W.P.

¶24

(MD)No.22684 of 2017 against the respondents praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to accord permission and police protection to conduct Pooja with lamps (tpsf;F g{i$) at Sri Poovanavar Vinayagar, Sri Pathirakaliyamman, Sri Mariyamman and Sri Navalingeshwarar Temple, A.Vellodu Village, V.Kallupatti West, Dindigul District, based on his representation dated 04.12.2017. The Writ Petition came to be dismissed at the admission stage itself on 15.12.2017 by assigning the reason that the writ petitioner has not impleaded the persons, who are really interested and also approached this Court with tainted hands and challenging the legality of the said order, the writ petitioner came forward to file this Writ Appeal.

¶25

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court to the typed-set of documents, especially to the exparte decree dated 20.09.2017 in O.S.No.409 of 2016 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Dindigul, filed by him along with one Nagarajan against the private respondents praying for permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from opening the locks of the Temple and to conduct pooja and other festivals and would state that pursuant to the exparte decree, he submitted a representation dated 04.12.2017 praying for appropriate permission and without knowing the fact that the defendants 1 to 3 in the said suit, who were also arrayed as private respondents in the Writ Petition, the Writ Petition came to be dismissed and hence, he was constrained to file this Writ Appeal.

¶26

The Court heard the submissions of Mr.M.Murugan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents, who would submit that the purpose of the representation is to conduct the Pooja and other related festivals on 16.12.2017 and since the date has already passed, nothing survives for further adjudication in this Writ Appeal.

¶27

In response to the same, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that for conducting poojas and other related festivals in future dates, the appellant may be permitted to submit a representation to the official respondents and it may be considered after taking cognizance of the above said exparte decree.

¶28

This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed before it.

¶29

As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents, the appellant sought permission to conduct pooja and other related festivals on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 16.12.2017 in respect of the above said three Temples, namely Sri Poovanavar Vinayagar, Sri Pathirakaliyamman, Sri Mariyamman and Sri

¶30

¶31

Navalingeshwarar Temple, A.Vellodu Village, V.Kallupatti West, Dindigul District. However, on account of the dismissal of the Writ Petition, the appellant did not conduct pooja and as such, nothing remains for adjudication in the Writ Appeal.

¶32

However, this Court, in the light of the representation made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that no application has been filed to set aside the exparte decree and it has also become final, grants liberty to the appellant to submit a representation to the official respondents for conducting poojas and other related festivals on the due dates and as and when such representation is received, it shall be duly considered in accordance with law and appropriate orders be passed at an early date.

¶33

In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed subject to the above observation. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

Assistant Registrar(AS)

¶36

/True Copy/

¶37

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶38

¶39

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

¶40

2.The Inspector of Police, Ambathurai Police Station,

¶41

Dindigul District.

¶42

+1CC to Mr.K.Kulanthai Vikram, Advocate, SR.No. 46290 +1CC to the Special Government Pleader SR.No.46605

¶43

Judgment made in W.A(MD)No.171 of 2018 Dated: 05.02.2018

¶44

sm/SML

¶45

AM/KKR/SAR 1/19.02.2018/3P/5C

¶46

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

Chokkar v. the Supperintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chokkar v. the Supperintendent 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

S.Varatharaja Bhoopathi, Vs the District Registrar

P.Manimozhi Vs the District Collector

Muthu Murugan, Vs the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu

The Member Secretary Vs Muthuraman

The Managing Director Vs S.Sahul Hameed

The Managing Director Vs K. Murugesan