Allowed

Rajamanickam, v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC10 May 2018WP(MD)/10858/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to permit the petitioner to hold a cultural program at the Arulmigu Pidari Temple, subject to ensuring the event concludes by 10:00 PM and no obscenity is allowed.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Second Respondent to grant permission to hold the event subject to conditions regarding timing (10:00 PM) and prohibition of obscenity.

Rajamanickam, Vs the Superintendent of Police — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 10.05.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶5

W.P(MD)No.10858 of 2018

Rajamanickam

: Petitioner

Vs.

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

¶10

2.The Inspector of Police, Siruganur Police Station, Siruganur, Trichy District. : Respondents

¶11

PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to conduct Adal Padal cultural program during Car festival in Arulmigu Pidari @ Sri Chellandiamman Temple, Kanakilliyanallur village, Lalgudi Taluk, Trichy District on 16/05/2018 from 09.00PM to 01.00AM and to provide adequate police protection.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar For Respondents : Mrs.S.Srimathy Special Government Pleader

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶15

2.The second respondent is directed to grant permission to the petitioner to hold the event as sought for. It is open to the second respondent to incorporate such conditions as he deems fit taking into account the local circumstances. The object of the stipulating conditions will be to ensure the smooth holding of the event and to maintain law and order. It is made clear that the programme shall conclude by 10.00 p.m. positively. It is made clear that no obscenity shall be permitted.

¶16

3.This Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶17

Sd/Vacation Officer

¶18

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

¶19

/True copy/

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

¶22

¶23

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

¶24

2.The Inspector of Police, Siruganur Police Station, Siruganur, Trichy District.

¶25

+1cc to Special Government Pleader, SR.No.65298.

¶26

+1cc to Mr.T.Lenin Kumar, Advocate, SR.No.65291.

¶27

W.P(MD)No.10858 of 2018

¶28

MM/SMN2

¶29

RAM/SV MMS/SAR 4/11.05.2018/2P/5C

¶30

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

Rajamanickam, v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajamanickam, 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

G.Stephen, Vs the Managing Director

Kalaiganam, Vs the Inspector of Police

Praveenkumar Vs the Inspector of Police

A.Rajendran Vs the Superintendent of Police

M.Baning Durairaj, Vs the Principal Secretary to

V.Jayakumar Vs the Government of India