Allowed

M.Ravichandiran v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC20 Jun 2022WP/15454/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras issued a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent police to grant permission for a cultural programme at a temple festival, subject to strict conditions regarding time, content, road usage, and intoxicating substances, along with mandatory videography and a ₹15,000 security deposit.

What did the court decide?

Removal of conditions imposed on permission; Direction to grant permission for cultural programme with specific conditions including 10 p.m. cutoff, no inappropriate songs, videography, and ₹15,000 se

M.Ravichandiran Vs The Inspector of Police — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 20.06.2022

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶5

W.P. No.15454 of 2022

¶6

M.Ravichandiran ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Inspector of Police, Irumbulikurichi Police Station, Irumbulikurichi, Ariyalur District. ... Respondent

¶9

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ, directing the respondent authority to give permission to conduct Cultural Programme (Adal Padal Nigalchi) in the event of Paranam Village Arulmigu Sree Throbathaiyamman Temple Festival at Senthurai Taluk, Ariyalur District on 21.06.2022 between 06.00 p.m., to 11.00 p.m., by considering the petitioner's representation dated 14.06.2022.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Nandhakumar

¶11

For Respondent : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

The Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondent authority to give permission to conduct Cultural Programme (Adal Padal Nigalchi) in the event of Paranam Village Arulmigu Sree Throbathaiyamman Temple Festival at Senthurai Taluk, Ariyalur District on 21.06.2022 between 06.00 p.m., to 11.00 p.m., by considering the petitioner's representation dated 14.06.2022.

¶14

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

¶15

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that the police do not have any

¶16

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

¶17

reservations on the place, where the function is to be conducted. However, there is an apprehension that some law and order problem may arise during the cultural programme. He would also submit that the Director General of Police, in his proceedings in Rc.No.007301/Genl.I(1)/2019 dated 09.04.2019, has issued circular to the Commissioner of Police, Superintendent of Police and all the Station Housing Officer, directing them to follow the procedure and instruct the petitioner seeking permission to conduct cultural programmes to comply with the conditions and permission may be granted subject to the petitioner agreeing to comply with the said conditions by filing necessary undertaking before the respondent police.

¶18

The respondent police are directed to grant permission for conducting the cultural programme (ie.,) Adal Padal Dance Programme as sought by the petitioner, with the following conditions:

¶19

(a) The Aadal Paadal programme in connection with festival or any cultural programme, SHO should specify the time and the same shall not be later than 10.00 p.m;

¶20

(b) double meaning songs should not be played so as to spoil the minds of students and the youth;

¶21

¶22

(d) Organizers shall not erect any digital banners/pla cards on either side of the arterial roads, platforms, walkways/major roads and any other roads;

¶23

(e) the function should not affect caste, religious or communal harmony and shall be conducted without any discrimination;

¶24

(f) if there is any 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;

¶25

(g) similarly, the Police is empowered to stop the programme, if it exceeds beyond the permitted time;

¶26

(h) the participants of the programme shall not intake any kind of intoxicating substance or liquor during the programme;

¶27

(i) if any untoward incident takes place, the organizers of the programme be made responsible for the same;

¶28

(j) the authority concerned shall videograph the entire programme at the cost of the applicant and submit the CD to the S.P concerned;

¶29

(k)Organizers shall have to obtain all other required permission from the authorities concerned;

¶30

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

¶31

(l)Any other conditions as the authority concerned consider to impose according to the ground reality”.

¶32

The petitioner is also directed to ensure that the conditions are strictly complied with and also to ensure that no law and order problem is created in the course of conducting the programme. If there is any rival claim, the police is also directed to hear the other side before granting permission to the petitioner. Further, the petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) to the respondent police towards bundobust charges.

¶33

The Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above directions.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶38

rgi/ham

¶39

¶40

The Inspector of Police,

¶41

Irumbulikurichi Police Station, Irumbulikurichi,

¶42

Ariyalur District.

¶43

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶44

W.P. No.15454 of 2022

¶45

PL(CO) SB(24/06/2022)

¶46

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

M.Ravichandiran v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Ravichandiran v. The Inspector 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.Manikandan Vs Commissioner of Police

Manoharan Vs State Rep by

Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police

Vennila Vs the State Rep by

C.Muniraji Vs The Inspector of Police

P.Gunasekaran Vs The Inspector of Police