Allowed

N.Ganapathy, v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC27 Jul 2018WP(MD)/15351/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed a writ petition seeking quashing of an order refusing permission for a cultural program. The Court set aside the impugned order, relied on a prior decision and a Supreme Court ruling, and directed the respondent to reconsider the request with specific conditions to ensure public peace and prevent discrimination.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; petitioner to produce representation copy; respondent to reconsider request and pass appropriate orders by 31.08.2018.

N.Ganapathy, Vs the Superintendent of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 27.07.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.15351 of 2018

¶7

N.Ganapathy ... Petitioner

¶8

The Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District.

¶9

The Inspector of Police, East Police Station, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District. ... Respondents

¶10

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in order dated 07.07.2018 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to give necessary police protection and permit the petitioner to conduct “Adalum Padalum” Cultural programe during Arulmigu Uchinimahakaliammankovil festival Thirumangai Nagar, Kovilpatti Taluk, Thoothukudi District on 02.08.2018 and consider the petitioner's representation dated 04.07.2018.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Prabu For Respondents : Mr.P.Kannidevan, Additional Government Pleader

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned order passed by the second respondent dated 07.07.2018 and consequently direct the respondent to give necessary police protection and permit the petitioner to conduct “Adalum Padalum” Cultural programe during Arulmigu Uchinimahakaliammankovil festival Thirumangai Nagar, Kovilpatti Taluk, Thoothukudi District on 02.08.2018, based on the petitioner's representation dated 04.07.2018.

¶14

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶15

¶16

3.Taking into consideration the facts of the present case and the fact that such programmes are being organized and conducted in every village all over the state, preventing the petitioner from conducting such programme in this particular village will amount to discrimination.

¶17

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that this Court, by the order dated 24.07.2017, in WP (MD)No.13517 of 2017, passed an order, directing the respondent therein to consider the representation of the petitioner, subject to certain conditions and any other reasonable restrictions that may be imposed by the respondent in the interest of public and to preserve the law and order. The conditions imposed in the said order reads as follows:

¶18

(a) the "Adal Padal" programme in connection with a festival should be completed before 10.30 p.m.

¶19

(b) double meaning songs should not be played so as to spoil the minds of students and the youth;

¶20

(c) no songs, touching upon any political party or religion, community or caste be played;

¶21

(d) no flex boards in support of any political party or religious leader be erected;

¶22

(e) the function should not affect either religious or communal harmony and shall be conducted without any discrimination based on caste;

¶23

(f) if there is any 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;

¶24

(g) similarly, the Police is empowered to stop the programme, if it exceeds beyond the permitted time;

¶25

(h) the participants of the programme shall not intake any kind of in-toxic substance or liquor during the programme; and

¶26

(i) if any untoward incident takes place, the organizers of the programme be made responsible for the same.

¶27

5.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that in the light of the aforesaid order passed by this Court in WP(MD)No.13517 of 2017 dated 24.07.2017 and also in the light of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2001) 1 L.W. (Crl.) 233 [Church of God (Full Gospel) in India Vs. K.K.R.Majestic Colony Welfare Association and others], appropriate orders will be passed on the representation of the petitioner.

¶28

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

¶29

6.The relevant portion of the decision rendered by the

¶30

¶31

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Church of God (Full gospel) in India Vs. K.K.R.Majestic Colony Welfare Association and others, reported in 2001 1 L.W. (Crl.) 233 reads as follows:

¶32

“.... Further, it is to be stated that because of urbanization or industrialization, the noise pollution may in some area of a city / town might be exceeding permissible limits prescribed under the rules, but that would not be a ground for permitting others to increase the same by beating of drums or by use of voice amplifiers, loudspeakers or by such other musical instruments and, therefore, rules prescribing reasonable restrictions including the rules for the use of loudspeakers and voice amplifiers framed under the Madras Town Nuisance Act, 1889, and also the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 are required to be enforced. We would mention that even though the Rules are unambiguous, there is lack of awareness among the citizens as well as the Implementation Authorities about the Rules or its duty to implement the same. Noise pollution activities which rampant and yet for one reason or the other, the aforesaid Rules or the rules framed under various State Police Acts are not enforced. Hence, the High Court has rightly directed implementation of the same. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. “

¶33

7.In the light of the submissions made on both sides, this writ petition is allowed and impugned order passed by the second respondent dated 07.07.2018 is set aside. The second respondent, Inspector of Police, East Police Station, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District is directed to reconsider the representation of the petitioner dated 04.07.2018 in the light of the order passed in WP (MD)No.13517 of 2017 dated 24.07.2017 and also in the light of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2001 1 L.W. (Crl.) 233 [Church of God (Full Gospel) in India Vs. K.K.R.Majestic Colony Welfare Association and others ], and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on or before 31.08.2018, if there is no rival claim among the parties to conduct the festival. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the representation dated 04.07.2018 to the second respondent along with a copy of this order.

¶34

8.In addition to the above conditions imposed in WP(MD) No.13517 of 2017, in the event of granting permission by the second respondent, the member or the petitioner has to give undertaking or assurance before the authority concerned that there will not be any obscenity or vulgarity in the cultural programme https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and there will not be any disturbance to the public peace and tranquillity. Further, the second respondent / Inspector of

¶35

¶36

Police, East Police Station, Kovilpatti, Thoothukudi District, is directed to videograph the entire cultural programme, at the cost of the petitioner and submit the CD to the Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District. If any violation of the above said condition by any of the parties is noted, the respondents are at liberty to take appropriate criminal action against the organiser and the concerned persons in accordance with law. No costs.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

Assistant Registrar(Crl.side)

¶39

/True Copy/

¶40

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶41

¶42