Disposed

Ocha Thevar v. the Superintdent of Police

Madras HC2 Apr 2018WP(MD)/7081/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court directed the police to consider a petitioner's application for permission to hold a cultural event for the Panguni Festival, imposing conditions on noise, content, and documentation based on prior orders and Supreme Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Inspector of Police to consider the petitioner's representation and pass an order by 06.04.2018, subject to conditions including time limits, content restrictions, prohibition of intoxica

Ocha Thevar Vs the Superintdent of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.04.2018 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶4

W.P.(MD)No.7081 of 2018

¶5

Ocha Thevar ... Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

1.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai. 2.The Inspector of Police, Peraiyur Police Station, Madurai District. 3.The Sub Inspector of Police, Sedapatti Police Station, Madurai District. ... Respondents

¶8

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 2 and 3 to grant permission and protection for cultural event namely Aadal padal scheduled to be held on 07.04.2018 at night in connection with panguni Festival in Arulmigu Sri Manthai Amman Kovil at Kurukkam Patti Village, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District by considering the petitioner's representation dated 26.03.2018.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Senthilrajan For Respondents : Mr.D.Shanmugaselvam Additional Government Pleader

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

This writ petition has been filed, seeking direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to grant permission and protection for conducting cultural event namely Aadal padal scheduled to be held on 07.04.2018 at night, in connection with Panguni Festival in Arulmigu Sri Manthai Amman Kovil at Kurukkam Patti Village, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 26.03.2018.

¶12

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶13

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that this Court, by the order dated 24.07.2017, in WP(MD)No.13517 of

¶14

¶15

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:

¶16

(a) the "Adal Padal" programme in connection with a festival

¶17

should be completed before 10.30 p.m.

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

(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;

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

4.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.

¶27

5.The relevant portion of the decision rendered by the 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:

¶28

“.... 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ voice amplifiers framed under the Madras Town Nuisance Act, 1889, and also the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000

¶29

¶30

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. “

¶31

6.In the light of the submissions made on both sides, this Court directs the second respondent, Inspector of Police, Peraiyur Police Station, Madurai District to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 26.03.2018 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 06.04.2018, if there is no rival claim among the parties to conduct the festival.

¶32

7.In addition to the above conditions imposed in WP(MD) No.13517 of 2017, in the event of permission is granted by the respondents, the organizer 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 and there will not be any disturbance to the public peace and tranquillity. Further, the second respondent, Inspector of Police, Peraiyur Police Station, Madurai District is directed to videograph the entire cultural programme, at the cost of the petitioner and submit the CD to the Superintendent of Police, Madurai. If any violation of the above said condition by any of the parties, the respondents are at liberty to take appropriate criminal action against the organiser and the concerned persons in accordance with law.

¶33

8.With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

Assistant Registrar(C.O)

¶36

/True Copy/

¶37

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶38

¶39

1.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai. 2.The Inspector of Police, Peraiyur Police Station, Madurai District.

¶40

3.The Sub Inspector of Police, Sedapatti Police Station, Madurai District. +One cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR.No.59702 +One cc to M/s.D.Senthilrajan, Advocate, SR.No.59377 mj

¶41

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ RL/6C/3p/SV/MMS/SAR4/6/4/2018 W.P.(MD)No.7081 of 2018

¶42

02.04.2018

Ocha Thevar v. the Superintdent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ocha Thevar v. the Superintdent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anitha Baskaran Vs C. Dharanipathy

Saroja Vs M. Chandrasekaran

K.Rajan Vs Mrs.v.Vijayalakshmi

Thangadurai Vs the Superintendent of Police

A.Muniyasamy, Vs the Superintendent of Police

S.Mookkaiah Vs the Superintendent of Police