Disposed

S.Venkatesan, v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC6 Apr 2018WP(MD)/7432/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the respondent Inspector of Police to consider the petitioner's representation for permission to conduct a cultural dance programme, applying conditions from a prior order and a Supreme Court decision, and required an undertaking regarding public peace.

What did the court decide?

Direction to consider representation; condition of undertaking and videography imposed for future permission.

S.Venkatesan, Vs the Inspector of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 06.04.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.7432 of 2018

S.Venkatesan

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Inspector of Police, Vallathirakottai Police Station, Vallathirakottai, Pudukkottai District.

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent herein to grant permission and to provide police protection to conduct the “Aadalum Paadalum” dance programme on 19.04.2018 in pursuant to the 'Chithirai Thiruvizha' of Arulmigu Sree Alagambal Thirukoil, situated at Moothanankurichi Village, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 04.04.2018.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Rameshkumar For Respondent : Mr.P.Kannithevan Additional Government Pleader

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondent herein to grant permission and to provide police protection to conduct the “Aadalum Paadalum” dance programme on 19.04.2018 in pursuant to the 'Chithirai Thiruvizha' of Arulmigu Sree Alagambal Thirukoil, situated at Moothanankurichi Village, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 04.04.2018.

¶16

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

¶17

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 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent in the interest of public and to preserve the law and order. The conditions imposed in the said order read as follows:

¶18

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

(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;

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

4.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent 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.

¶29

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:

¶30

“.... 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ pollution activities which rampant and yet for one reason or the other, the aforesaid Rules or the rules framed

¶31

¶32

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

6.In the light of the submissions made on both sides, this Court directs the respondent/Inspector of Police, Vallathirakottai Police Station, Vallathirakottai, Pudukkottai District, to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 04.04.2018 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 18.04.2018, if there is no rival claim among the parties to conduct the festival.

¶34

7.In addition to the above conditions imposed in WP(MD) No.13517 of 2017, in the event of permission is granted by the respondent, 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 respondent/ Inspector of Police, Vallathirakottai Police Station, Vallathirakottai, Pudukkottai District, is directed to videograph the entire cultural programme, at the cost of the petitioner and submit the CD to the concerned Superintendent of Police. If any violation of the above said condition by any of the parties, the respondent is at liberty to take appropriate criminal action against the organiser and the concerned persons in accordance with law.

¶35

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

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

Assistant Registrar(C.O.)

¶38

/True Copy/

¶39

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶40

¶41

1 The Inspector of Police, Vallathirakottai Police Station, Vallathirakottai, Pudukkottai District.

¶42

2 The Superintendent of Police,

¶43

Pudukkottai District.

¶44

+1CC to Mr.D.Rameshkumar, Advocate, SR.No. 60107

¶45

+1CC to the Special Government Pleader SR.No.60306

¶46

W.P.(MD)No.7432 of 2018

¶47

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

¶48

¶49

AM/SV MMS/SAR 4/11.04.2018/3P/5C

S.Venkatesan, v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Venkatesan, 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Syedsamsugani Vs the Superintendent of Police

Malaisamy @ Alagan Vs the Superintendent of Police

Venkatesapandiyan Vs the Inspector of Police

Kandasamy Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

M. Ashok Kumar Vs the District Collector

Ramachandran Vs the Inspector of Police