Allowed

M.Perumal v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC3 Jan 2020CRL OP/34784/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Madras, in a Criminal Original Petition, Granted permission to the petitioner to conduct a cultural programme for Arulmighu Sri Periyandavar Swami Thirukoil, rejecting the respondent police's claim of likely law and order issues without material evidence. Permission was granted subject to specific conditions regarding police costs, decorum, non-political content, and communal harmony

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to conduct the cultural programme on 16.01.2020 at the specified venue, subject to payment of Rs.10,000 for police protection and adherence to conditions on decorum, content, and co

M.Perumal Vs the Superintendent of Police — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 03.01.2020 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM CRL.O.P.No.34784 of 2019

¶2

M.Perumal

¶3

... Petitioner

¶4

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

¶5

2.The Inspector of Police, Kanthili Police Station, Thirupathur District. ... Respondents

¶6

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to issue direction to the second respondent TO GIVE THE BANDOBUST for permission to conduct the cultural programme on 16.01.2020 in the event of Arulmighu Sri Periyandavar Swami Thirukoil at Anumampatti Village, Pallathur Post, Thirupattur Taluk and District based on the petitioner's representation dated 25.12.2019.

¶7

For Respondents : Mr.C.Raghavan,

¶8

This petition has been filed to issue direction to the second respondent TO GIVE THE BANDOBUST for permission to conduct the cultural programme on 16.01.2020 in the event of Arulmighu Sri Periyandavar Swami Thirukoil at Anumampatti Village, Pallathur Post, Thirupattur Taluk and District based on the petitioner's representation dated 25.12.2019.

¶9

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

¶10

The learned Government Advocate, on instructions, would submit that there is likelihood of arising law and order problem.

¶11

1/3

¶12

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

¶13

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 “Arulmighu Sri Periyandavar Swami Thirukoil at Anumampatti Village, Pallathur Post, Thirupattur Taluk and District”, however with the following conditions:-

¶14

(a) The cultural programme in connection with the event of “Arulmighu Sri Periyandavar Swami Thirukoil at Anumampatti Village, Pallathur Post, Thirupattur Taluk and District”, on 16.01.2020.

¶15

(b) The petitioner shall pay a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the 2nd respondent police towards police protection.

¶16

(c)There should not be any kind of obscene dance or vulgar dialogues during the performance, by anyone of the participants. (d) Double meaning songs should not be played so as to spoil the minds of students and youths.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

(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

¶21

(i) Similarly, the police is directed to stop the dance programme, if it is played beyond the permitted time limit.

¶22

(j) The 2nd respondent is directed to issue necessary permission, incorporating the above conditions.

¶23

2/3

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Asst.Registrar (CS V )

/true copy/

Sub Asst. Registrar

vv/ah To

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

¶32

2.The Inspector of Police, Kanthili Police Station, Thirupathur District.

¶33

3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

¶34

+1 cc to Mr.R.Gopinath Advocate sr625

¶35

CRL.O.P.No.34784 of 2019

¶36

aa06/01/2020

¶37

3/3

¶38

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

M.Perumal v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Perumal 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

Dhanasekaran Vs State Rep by

Ravichandran Vs Saranya

Gomathi Vs v.Jeevanandam

P.Naveen Kumar Vs Inspector of Police

Viswa Raha Sanjiv Vs State of Tamil Nadu

P.Vijayan Vs State of Tamil Nadu