Allowed

V.Rajkumar v. State Rep. by

Madras HC20 Jan 2020CRL OP/1002/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Criminal Original Petition, the court examined if an apprehended law and order problem could deny permission for a cultural program. The court held mere apprehension is insufficient without material evidence and permitted the event subject to conditions on content and police protection payments.

What did the court decide?

Permission to conduct the cultural program granted subject to conditions including payment of Rs.10,000 for police protection and adherence to content restrictions.

V.Rajkumar Vs State Rep. by — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 20.01.2020

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM

¶4

CRL.O.P.No.1002 of 2020

¶5

V.Rajkumar ... Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

State represented by The Inspector of Police, Malayampalayam Police Station, Malayampalayam, Erode District. ... Respondent

¶8

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the respondent authority to give police protection and permission to conduct Cultural Progaramme (Adal Padal Nigalchi) in the event of Vengiyampalayam Arulmigu Sree Maha Mariamman Temple Festival at Kodumudi Taluk, Erode District on 23.01.2020 between 06.00 PM to 11.00 PM by considering the petitioner's representation dated 09.01.2020.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sathishkumar For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶10

ORDER

¶11

This petition has been filed to direct the respondent authority to give police protection and permission to conduct Cultural Progaramme (Adal Padal Nigalchi) in the event of Vengiyampalayam Arulmigu Sree Maha Mariamman Temple Festival at Kodumudi Taluk, Erode District on 23.01.2020 between 06.00 PM to 11.00 PM by considering the petitioner's representation dated 09.01.2020.

¶12

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

¶13

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would submit that there is likelihood of arising law and order problem.

¶14

1/3

¶15

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

¶16

A mere apprehension cannot be a ground to reject the representation. There is absolutely no material before this Court to hold that there will be a law and order problem in the event of permission being granted. In such view of the matter, the petitioner is permitted to conduct Cultural Progaramme (Adal Padal Nigalchi) in the event of Vengiyampalayam Arulmigu Sree Maha Mariamman Temple Festival at Kodumudi Taluk, Erode District on 23.01.2020 between 06.00 PM to 11.00 PM by considering the petitioner's representation dated 09.01.2020, however with the following conditions:-

¶17

(a) The programme in connection with the event of Vengiyampalayam Arulmigu Sree Maha Mariamman Temple Festival at Kodumudi Taluk, Erode District shall be conducted on 23.01.2020 between 06.00 PM to 11.00 PM.

¶18

(b) The petitioner shall pay a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the respondent police towards police protection.

¶19

(c)There should not be any kind of obscene dance or vulgar dialogues during the performance, by anyone of the participants.

¶20

(d) Double meaning songs should not be played so as to spoil the minds of students and youths.

¶21

(e) No dance or songs, touching upon any political party or religion or community or caste shall be played.

¶22

(f) No flex boards in support of any political party or communal leader, shall be erected at the premises of the programme.

¶23

(g) The function shall not affect either religious or communal harmony and shall be conducted without any discrimination based on caste.

¶24

(h) If there is 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 forthwith; and

¶25

(i) Similarly, the police is directed to stop the dance

¶26

programme, if it is played beyond the permitted time limit.

¶27

(j) The respondent police is directed to issue necessary permission, incorporating the above conditions.

¶28

5.With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)

¶31

//True Copy//

¶32

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶33

2/3

¶34

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

¶35

¶36

1.The Inspector of Police, Malayampalayam Police Station, Malayampalayam, Erode District. 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. +1 cc to M/s.A.Sathish Kumar,Advocate Sr.No. 3549 AKM/21.01.2020/3P-4C /

¶37

CRL.O.P.No.1002 of 2020

¶38

3/3

¶39

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

V.Rajkumar v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Rajkumar v. State Rep. by

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

K.Karthik Vs the Inspector of Police

Mani Vs the Inspector of Police

Mohamed Siddique Vs State Represented by

M.Muthu Saravana Kumar Vs the Commissioner of Police

Byjesh Vs State Represented by

K.Chandrasekar Vs State by