Disposed

A.Thiyagarajan v. The Superintendent of Police

Madras HC23 Jun 2022WP/15930/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed for mandamus to direct police to grant permission for a cultural programme. Court directed authorities to grant permission subject to specific conditions including time limits, content restrictions, security, and payment of bundobust charges.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted subject to conditions including time limits, content restrictions, videography, security deposit, and compliance with safety norms.

A.Thiyagarajan Vs The Superintendent of Police — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 23.06.2022

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶5

W.P. No.15930 of 2022

A.Thiyagarajan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Vellore, Vellore District-632 012.

¶10

2.The Inspector of Police, Gudiyatham Gramiya Police Station, Gudiyatham Taluk, Vellore District 632 601. ..Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first and second respondents to grant permission to conduct Cultural Programme of Adal Padal on 26.06.2022 at 6.00 pm to 11.00 pm at “Sri Gengaiamman Temple Festival” Kottaramadugu Village, Sempalli Post, Gudiyatham Taluk, Vellore District by consider and pass orders on the representation dated 12.06.2022 made by the petitioner.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Suryakumaran

¶13

For Respondents: Mr.N.Muthuvel

¶14

Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondents authority to give permission to conduct Cultural Programme (Aadal Padal Nilgalchi) in the event of “Sri Gengaiamman Temple Festival” Kottaramadugu Village, Sempalli Post, Gudiyatham Taluk, Vellore District on 26.06.2022 between 06.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m. by considering the petitioner's representation dated 12.06.2022.

¶17

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent.

¶18

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for

¶19

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

¶20

the respondent submitted that the police do not have any 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 Officers, 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.

¶21

The respondents 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:

¶22

(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;

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

(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;

¶26

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

¶27

(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;

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

(k)Organizers shall have to obtain all other

¶33

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

¶34

required permission from the authorities concerned;

¶35

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

¶36

The petitioner is also directed to ensure that the

¶37

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) everyday to the respondent police towards bundobust charges. The uploaded copy can be utilised for the purpose of execution of the order.

¶38

The Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above

¶39

directions. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶44

shk/kas

¶45

¶46

1.The Superintendent of Police, Vellore, Vellore District-632 012.

¶47

2.The Inspector of Police, Gudiyatham Gramiya Police Station, Gudiyatham Taluk, Vellore District 632 601.

¶48

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶49

W.P. No.15930 of 2022

¶50

MG(CO)

¶51

SB(01/07/2022)

¶52

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

A.Thiyagarajan v. The Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Thiyagarajan 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

Dheeban Vs the State Rep by

V.Murugan Vs The Commissioner of Police

S.Selvamary Vs State Rep by

S.Devendiran Vs The State rep by

G. Palani, Vs The Superintendent of Police

S. Manoharan, Vs The Superintendent of Police