Petitioner sought writ to quash order rejecting permission for an annual bull race. Court dismissed petition, holding discretion vested in authorities and current timing beyond permissible period.
Writ Petition dismissed with no costs; consequential Writ Misc. Petition closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Orders Reserved on : 02.08.2019
Orders Pronounced on :07.08.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH
and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P.No.9870 of 2019 and W.M.P.No.10467 of 2019
R.Vijay Kumar .. Petitioner
Vs.
The District Collector, Vellore, Vellore District. .. Respondent
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records in pursuant to the impugned order in Na.Ka.C3/29668/2018, dated 19.02.2019 issued by the respondent and quash the same, consequently direct the respondent to grant permission to conduct Manjuvirattu (Bull race) at Thiru.V.Ka.Nagar, Kattupadi, Kanniyampadi, Vellore, Vellore District.
For petitioner : Mr.M.Satish Kumar
For respondent : Mr.V.Shanmuga Sundar, Spl.G.P.
ORDER
R.Subbiah,J
The petitioner has come forward with the present Writ Petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records in pursuant to the impugned order in Na.Ka.C3/29668/2018, dated 19.02.2019 issued by the respondent and quash the same, consequently direct the respondent to grant permission to conduct Manjuvirattu (Bull race) at Thiru.V.Ka.Nagar, Kattupadi, Kanniyampadi, Vellore, Vellore District.
fixed for conducting the Manjuvirattu, as specified in the said letter. Further, the respondent had rejected the request for conducting the Manjuvirattu event on the ground of traffic congestion and there is possibility of the accident being caused in the area being nearby Highways. It was further observed in the impugned order that the petitioner had not produced any proof to show that 20 years before, the said event was conducted. We do not find any infirmity in the decision taken by the respondent in rejecting the request of the petitioner for conducting Manjuvirattu on the above grounds. Further, at this distant point of time, when the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal, it is not appropriate for this Court to entertain the prayer sought for conducting the said Manjvirattu event, which is now beyond May month, even though the Writ Petition was filed as early as in March 2019 itself, but several adjournments had been granted in the meantime at the request of either side. It is for the competent authority to decide the issue in question, and therefore, by setting aside the impugned order of the respondent, we cannot give any direction. The administrative decision cannot be decided in the Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and it is the discretion vested with the concerned authorities to decide the administrative actions. This Court finds that the respondent has rightly rejected the application seeking permission for conduct of Manjuvirattu event. Therefore, we do not find any valid reason to interfere in these kinds of matters. The petitioner can very well apply before the authorities concerned for conducting Manjuvirattu and related functions next year, before-hand and seek necessary relief.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS V)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
cs
To
The District Collector, Vellore, Vellore District.
+1cc to the Government Pleader Sr.68440
W.P.No.9870 of 2019
nmI[co]
srg 14/09/2019
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can direct the respondent authority to grant permission to conduct a traditional bull race event in a writ petition despite administrative limitations.
Whether the respondent's rejection of permission due to traffic congestion and exceeding the permissible time limit warrants judicial interference.
Whether the Court should set aside the impugned order and issue fresh directions for conducting the event.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
R. Vijay Kumar
The District Collector, Vellore
R. Subbiah
C. Saravanan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
