Allowed

K.G.Munisami Gounder v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC22 Jan 2020CRL OP/1130/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the petitioner's apprehension regarding law and order as insufficient grounds to deny permission for a cultural programme during a temple festival, granting permission subject to strict conditions regarding timing, conduct, and cost to police.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to conduct the cultural programme with conditions, including a fee of Rs.10,000 for police protection.

K.G.Munisami Gounder Vs the Superintendent of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 22.01.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM CRL.O.P.No.1130 of 2020

¶5

K.G. Munisami Gounder ... Petitioner Vs.

¶6

The Superintendent of Police, Tiruppattur, Tiruppattur District – 632 001.

¶7

The Inspector of Police, Kurisilapattu Police Station, Tiruppattur Taluk, Tiruppattur District. ...Respondents

¶8

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to issue a direction to the respondent to grant permission to perform the program of 'Adal Padal' on 24.01.2020 at about 06.00 P.M. To 11.00 P.M. at “Sri Koothandavar Temple festival” is situated at Kurisilapattu Village, Kurisilapattu Post, Tiruppattur Taluk, Tiruppattur District and to provide adequate police protection based on petitioner representations dated 12.01.2020.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Mayilnathan

¶10

For Respondents : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz

¶11

This petition has been filed to direct the respondent to grant permission to perform the program of 'Adal Padal' on 24.01.2020 at about 06.00 P.M. To 11.00 P.M. at “Sri Koothandavar Temple festival” situated at Kurisilapattu Village, Kurisilapattu Post, Tiruppattur Taluk, Tiruppattur District and to provide adequate police protection based on petitioner representations dated 12.01.2020.

¶12

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

¶13

1/3

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶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 programme in the event of “ Sri Koothandavar Temple festival”, however with the following conditions:-

¶17

(a) The cultural programme in connection with the event of “Sri Koothandavar Temple festival” shall be conducted on 24.01.2020 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 respondents 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 programme, if it is played beyond the permitted time limit.

¶26

2/3

¶27

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

¶28

(j) The respondents are directed to issue necessary permission, incorporating the above conditions.

¶29

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

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

Asst.Registrar (CS VI)

/true copy/

Sub Asst. Registrar

ebsi

To 1. The Superintendent of Police, Tiruppattur, Tiruppattur District – 632 001. 2. The Inspector of Police, Kurisilapattu Police Station, Tiruppattur Taluk, Tiruppattur District. 3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

¶36

+1 cc to Mr.S.Mayilnathan Advocate sr 4182

¶37

CRL.O.P.No.1130 of 2020

¶38

aa22/01/2020

¶39

3/3

¶40

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

K.G.Munisami Gounder v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.G.Munisami Gounder 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

M.Yadav Vs the State Rep by Its

P.Sundar Vs M.Muruganandam

Sreemathy Vs State Rep by

K.Jeganathan Vs the Superintendent of Police

K.Velraj Vs State Rep. by

K.Sathakumar Vs State Rep. by