Partly allowed

B.Ali Hussain v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC10 Jan 2020WP/778/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to quash a letter denying permission to hold a public meeting. The High Court quashed the impugned single-line order and directed the second respondent to pass a fresh order after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.

What did the court decide?

Impugned letter dated 08.01.2020 set aside; petitioner directed to appear on 11.01.2020 for fresh consideration of the representation.

B.Ali Hussain Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 10.01.2020 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM W.P.No.778 of 2020 and W.M.P.No.943 of 2020

¶3

B.Ali Hussain ... Petitioner Vs.

¶4

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by, the Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

¶5

2.The Inspector of Police, Nellikuppam Police Station, Nellikuppam, Cuddalore-607 105. ...Respondents

¶6

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for an issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to call for the records in impugned letter dated 08.01.2020 on the file of the second respondent and to quash the same as illegal and direct the second respondent to permit the petitioner's organisation Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam to hold public meeting in school veedhi Nellikkuppam on 12.01.2020 between 5.30 p.m., to 10.00 p.m., to secure ends of justice.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sankara Subbu For Respondents : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

This Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records in impugned letter dated 08.01.2020 on the file of the second respondent and to quash the same as illegal and direct the second respondent to permit the petitioner's organisation Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam to hold public meeting in school veedhi Nellikkuppam on 12.01.2020 between 5.30 p.m., to 10.00 p.m., to secure ends of justice.

¶10

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the second respondent has passed a single line order stating that since law and order problem may arise and hence the permission is denied. He further submitted that the second respondent has not given any opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case and hence, he would request to set aside the impugned order and direct the second respondent to pass fresh order after giving opportunity to the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶11

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted

¶12

that the second respondent may be directed to pass fresh order after giving an opportunity to the petitioner.

¶13

4.Considering the aforesaid submissions, the impugned

¶14

order passed by the second respondent dated 08.01.2020, is set aside. The petitioner is directed to appear before the second respondent tomorrow (11.01.2020) at 10.00 a.m., and on such appearance, the second respondent has to hear his arguments and dispose of the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law and inform the result of the enquiry to the petitioner.

¶15

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶16

Sd/-

¶17

Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶18

//True Copy//

¶19

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶20

gbi

¶21

¶22

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by, the Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

¶23

2.The Inspector of Police, Nellikuppam Police Station, Nellikuppam, Cuddalore-607 105.

¶24

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶25

+1cc to Mr.R.Sankara Subbu , Advocate SR.No. 391

¶26

W.P.No.778 of 2020 and W.M.P.No.943 of 2020

¶27

A.SK(10/01/2020)

¶28

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

B.Ali Hussain v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Ali Hussain v. The State of Tamil Nadu

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

Gangavani Vs State by

M.Arul Anand Vs State Rep by

M.Yuvaraj Vs State Rep by

K.Murugan Vs the State Rep by

R.Moorthy Vs the Superintendent of Police

M.Thangaraj Vs State Rep by