Dismissed

S.Mookkaiah v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC2 Apr 2018WP(MD)/7169/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court directed the Superintendent of Police to consider a pending representation for festival permission on merits and pass orders by a specified deadline.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of by directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders on merits on or before 02.04.2018 by 8.00 p.m.

S.Mookkaiah Vs the Superintendent of Police — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 02.04.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.7169 of 2018

S.Mookkaiah

... Petitioner

Vs.

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

¶11

2.The Inspector of Police, M.Rettiyarpatti Police Station, Aruppukkottai Taluk, Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Mandamus, to direct the 2^nd respondent to grant permission to the petitioner to conduct and celebrate the Panguni Pongal Thiruvizha along with Mike-set, Melam(Drum) from 03.04.2018 to 05.04.2018 at Arulmigu Sri Vinayagar, Sri Kaliamman and Sri Santhanamariamman in D.Sethupuram, Aruppukkottai Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.C.M.Arumugam For R1 and R2 : Mr.V.Anand Government Advocate

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶16

2.Mr.V.Anand, learned Government Advocate takes notice for respondents 1 and 2.

¶17

3.This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to give permission to the petitioner to conduct and celebrate the Panguni Pongal Thiruvizha along with Mike-set, Melam(Drum) from 03.04.2018 to 05.04.2018 at Arulmigu Sri Vinayagar, Sri Kaliamman and Sri Santhanamariamman in D.Sethupuram, Aruppukkottai Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.According to the petitioner, he approached the second respondent on 28.03.2018 to get permission for conducting the

¶19

¶20

festival of Panguni Pongal Thiruvizha along with Mike-set, Melam (Drum) from 03.04.2018 to 05.04.2018. It is further stated that the second respondent had received objections from a person, who is claiming the right of Poosari of the said Temple and hence, an enquiry was conducted by the second respondent and after the enquiry, in the presence of both parties proceedings have been passed on 01.04.2018. The aforesaid proceedings have been placed before this Court by the learned Government Advocate.

¶21

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Poosari, who is originally claiming the right and accepted for the aforesaid decision taken in the presence of both parties and there is no dispute among both parties. Therefore, there is no legal impediment to grant permission to the petitioner to conduct the festival, subject to the permission granted by the second respondent.

¶22

6.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

¶23

7.The Learned Government Advocate, who takes notice for the respondents, submitted that the petitioner's representation dated 28.03.2018 is now pending before the second respondent and in the aforesaid enquiry, both parties have appeared and the second respondent passed the proceedings on 01.04.2018, which reads as follows:

¶24

“ b ray ;Kiw Mizfs

¶25

tpUJefh; khtl;lk; , mUg;Gf;Nfhl;il tl;lk; , NrJGuk; fpuhkj;jpy; cs;s fhspak;kd; Nfhtpy; re;jd khhpak;kd; Nfhtpypy; rhkp Fk;gpLtJ rk;ke;jkhf f Po ;fz;l j Ph ;khdq;fs; epiwNtw;wg;gLfpwJ.

¶26

1.Nkw;gb Nfhtpypy; 03.04.2018 Kjy; 06.04.2018 tiu rhkp Fk;gpl cj;Njrpf;fg;gLfpwJ.

¶27

2.Nkw;gb Njjpfspy; Nrh;e;Njh jdpj;jdpahfNth rhkp Fk;gpl;Lf; nfhs;syhk;.

¶28

3.ahiuAk; cj;Njrpf;fg;gl;l Njjpfspy; ,e;j Njjpapy; jhd; Fk;gpl Ntz;Lk; vd;W fl;lhagLj;jf; $lhJ.

¶29

4.rhkp Fk;gpLtJ jtpu Nkw;gb Njjpfspy; ve;jtpjkhd fiy epfo;r;rpfSk; elj;jf; $lhJ.

¶30

5.Nkw;gb nrhd;d rq;fjpfis k PWgth;fs; ahuhf ,Ue;jhYk; mth;fs; k PJ rl;lg;gbahd eltbf;if vLf;fg;gLk;.

¶31

6.rl;lk;xOq;F gpur;rid kw;Wk; ghJfhg;G fUjp vLf;fg;gl;l eltbf;iffis ,U jug;gpdUk; fl;lhak; kjpj;J elf;f Ntz;Lk;.

¶32

8.In the light of the above said proceedings, the second respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 28.03.2018, including using of the Mike-set, on merits and pass orders in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to the parties concerned, on or before at 08.00 p.m., on 02.04.2018( today itself)

¶33

¶34

9.With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

Assistant Registrar(AE)

¶37

/True copy/

¶38

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶39

¶40

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

¶41

2.The Inspector of Police, M.Rettiyarpatti Police Station, Aruppukkottai Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

¶42

+1CC TO M/S.C.M.ARUMUGAM, ADVOCATE, SR NO.59287

¶43

W.P.(MD)No.7169 of 2018

¶44

02.04.2018

¶45

¶46

MS/SV-MMS/SAR-4/02.04.2018/3P.4C

¶47

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

S.Mookkaiah v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Mookkaiah 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

Anitha Baskaran Vs C. Dharanipathy

Saroja Vs M. Chandrasekaran

K.Rajan Vs Mrs.v.Vijayalakshmi

Thangadurai Vs the Superintendent of Police

Ocha Thevar Vs the Superintdent of Police

A.Muniyasamy, Vs the Superintendent of Police