Partly allowed

M.Ulagamuthu v. The District Collector

Madras HC20 Jun 2024WP(MD)/13246/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged an order rejecting permission to conduct a temple festival. The respondents invoked the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, arguing the event was not permissible. The court noted the authority lacked jurisdiction to issue such an order. The petitioner subsequently withdrew the petition.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to pursue the remedy in the manner known to law; writ petition dismissed as withdrawn.

M.Ulagamuthu Vs The District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.13246 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 20.06.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR .R.MAHADEVAN , ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.13246 of 2024

¶7

M.Ulagamuthu ... Petitioner

¶8

-vs-

¶9

1.The District Collector Office of the District Collector Thoothukudi District

¶10

2.The Superintendent of Police Office of the Superintendent of Police Thoothukudi District

¶11

3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police Vilathikulam Thoothukudi District

¶12

4.The Inspector of Police Vilathikulam Police Station Thoothukudi District

¶13

5.The Sub Inspector of Police Soorakudi Police Station Thoothukudi District ... Respondents

¶14

_____________ Page 1 of 6_

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

W.P.(MD) No.13246 of 2024

¶17

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings issued by the fifth respondent in C.No.06/proceedings/V2PS/TUT/2024 dated 07.06.2024 and quash the same illegal and consequently direct the fifth respondent herein to grant permission and provide adequate police protection during the conduct of “Eruthukattu Thiruvizha” on 10.07.2024 in connection with the ninth day festival of Sri Muneeswarar Temple, Sri Vadakku Va Selliamman Temple and Sri Utchani Maha Kaliamman Temple, situated at Pallakulam Village, Vaippar Post, Vilathikulam Taluk, Thoothukudi District.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Karthikeyavenkatachalapathy for Mr.K.Rajesh

¶19

For Respondents : Mr.P.Thilakkumar, Government Pleader for R1 Mr.T.Senthilkumar Additional Public Prosecutor for R2 to R5

¶20

_____________ Page 2 of 6_

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

R.MAHADEVAN , A.C.J. And G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

W.P.(MD) No.13246 of 2024

¶25

The order dated 07.06.2024, passed by the fifth respondent, rejecting the request of the petitioner to conduct the petition mentioned event citing law and order problem and other reasons, is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶26

2. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent, on instructions, submitted that as per G.O.Ms.No.8, Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries (AH3), dated 21.07.2017, the village, where the event is scheduled to be conducted, is not a notified village and that as per the amended Section 2(dd) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, the events involving bulls shall be conducted from the months of January to May of a calender year. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief as such sought for in this writ petition.

¶27

3. In view of the above submission of the learned Government Pleader, when we expressed our view that the writ petition cannot be entertained, learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission of this Court

¶28

Page 3 of 6

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

W.P.(MD) No.13246 of 2024

¶31

to withdraw this writ petition and he has also made an endorsement to that

¶32

effect. Liberty is granted to pursue the remedy in the manner known to law.

¶33

4. In view of the endorsement so made, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Further, it is to be noted that the authority, who passed the impugned order, has no jurisdiction to pass such an order. No costs.

¶34

[R.M.D., A.C.J.] [G.R.S., J.]

¶35

20.06.2024

¶36

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶37

krk / ias

¶38

To:

¶39

1.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Thoothukudi District.

¶40

2.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District.

¶41

3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vilathikulam, Thoothukudi District.

¶42

Page 4 of 6

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

W.P.(MD) No.13246 of 2024

¶45

4.The Inspector of Police, Vilathikulam Police Station, Thoothukudi District.

¶46

5.The Sub Inspector of Police, Soorakudi Police Station, Thoothukudi District.

¶47

Page 5 of 6

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

W.P.(MD) No.13246 of 2024

¶50

R.MAHADEVAN , A.C.J. and G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

¶51

krk / ias

¶52

W.P.(MD) No.13246 of 2024

¶53

20.06.2024

¶54

_____________ Page 6 of 6_

¶55

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

M.Ulagamuthu v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Ulagamuthu v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joseph Benin. T Vs The District Collector

S.Balakrishnan Vs G.Lakshmipathy IAS

S.Krishnan, Vs the Secretary to Govt.

M/s. Arulmighu Thiru Neelakanda Nayanar Mayandi Swamigal Trust Vs The District Collector / Chairman

Mounasamy Vs The District Collector

Ramar .R Vs The District Collector