Allowed

N.Govindaraj v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC20 Dec 2018WP/33927/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges the respondent's order denying permission to conduct a cultural program at a temple. The High Court issued a Writ of Certiorari and Mandamus directing the police to permit the program subject to specific conditions regarding time, content, and videography.

What did the court decide?

Police directed to permit cultural program on 27.12.2018 between 06:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. subject to listed conditions on content and videography. Petition disposed.

N.Govindaraj Vs The Inspector of Police — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED:20.12.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

W.P.No.33927 of 2018

¶6

N.Govindaraj ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs. The Inspector of Police, Modakurichi Police Station, Erode-638 104 ... Respondent

¶8

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling upon the entire records in pursuant to the impugned order issued by the respondent dated 12.12.2018 and quash the same as it is violation of the circular issued by the Director General of Police in Rc.No.159539/Crime.4(3)/2018, dated 31.10.2018 and consequently direct the respondent to give permission to the petitioner to conduct a cultural program (Adalum Padalum) schedule to be held on 27.12.2018 at "Arulmighu Chinnaathal Temple" at Chinniyampalayam, Modakurichi, Erode638104.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr. M.Manimaran For Respondents : Mr. E.Balamurugan, Spl. G.P. O R D E R

¶10

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the respondent rejecting the petitioner's request for conducting a festival on 27.12.2018 at Arulmighu Chinnaathal Temple at Chinniyampalayam, Modakurichi, Erode-638 104.

¶11

According to the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed by the respondent on the ground that if permission is granted for conducting cultural programme, it will lead to law and order problem and also cause insecurity to the people. Now, challenging the said order, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶12

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

¶13

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in a similar circumstance, this Court passed an order permitting to conduct cultural program on various conditions and prays the similar order may be passed.

¶14

Considering the above circumstances, the respondent is directed to permit the petitioner to conduct the cultural programme in connection with the Temple Festival of Arulmighu Chinnaathal Temple at Chinniyampalayam, Modakurichi, Erode-638 104 , scheduled to be held on 27.12.2018, with the following conditions:-

¶15

(a) The cultural programme in connection with the Temple Festival of Arulmighu Chinnaathal Temple at Chinniyampalayam, Modakurichi, Erode-638 104, shall be conducted on 27.12.2018 between 06.00 p.m., and 10.00 p.m

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

(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

¶22

(g) Similarly, the police is directed to stop the programme, if it is conducted beyond the permitted time limit.

¶23

(i) The territorial/jurisdictional Police Officer is directed to videograph the entire cultural programme at the cost of the petitioner and he shall take immediate legal action in accordance with law, if he finds any violaltion upon perusal of the said video C.D.

¶24

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

¶25

(j) At the time of submitting his application, the petitioner is bound to pay the required amount to the concerned authority upon proper receipt for the purpose of taking videography of the programme.

¶26

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.
No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-VI)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mrp
To
The Inspector of Police,
Modakurichi Police Station,
Erode-638 104
+1 cc to Mr.M.Manimaran, Advocate, S.R.No.88680
W.P.No.33927 of 2018
gp(CO)
SSM(26/12/2018)

¶27

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

N.Govindaraj v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Govindaraj v. The Inspector 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

G.Manimaran Vs Inspector of Police

K.Priya Vs The District Collector

B.Susindra, Vs The Commissioner & Special

T.Muniyappan Vs The Inspector of Police

M.Subramaniyam Vs The Inspector of Police

M/s.M.Kavitha Vs The Commissioner