Disposed

B.Sivasankar v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police

Madras HC11 Sept 2024WP(MD)/21641/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged police rejection of permission to hold an Adal Padal cultural programme during a temple Kumbhabhishekam. The court found the rejection reasons merely formal and quashed the impugned order, directing a fresh representation to be considered per DGP circular and Division Bench conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned rejection quashed; fresh representation to be decided within two days per DGP circular and Division Bench conditions; miscellaneous petition closed; no costs.

B.Sivasankar Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.21641 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 11.09.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.21641 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD)No.18279 of 2024

B.Sivasankar

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tiruchirachetti, Sivagangai District.

¶11

2.The Inspector of Police, Tiruchirachetti Police Station, Sivagangai District. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.16/Ka/Aa/Tiruchirachetti/2024 dated 04.09.2024 and quash the same and direct the second respondent to grant permission and necessary protection to perform the cultural program (ie) Adal Padal on 15.09.2024 at 07.00 PM to 10.00 PM in the evening of

¶13

1/8

¶14

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

¶15

W.P(MD)No.21641 of 2024

¶16

Arulmigu Sri Puliyarudaiya Ayyanar kovil Kumbhabhishekam at Tiruchirachetti Village, Sivagangai District.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Krishna Kumar

¶18

For Respondents : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 04.09.2024 issued by the second respondent and for direction to the second respondent to grant permission and necessary protection to perform the cultural program (ie) Adal Padal on 15.09.2024 at 07.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. in Arulmigu Sri Puliyarudaiya Ayyanar kovil Kumbhabhishekam at Tiruchirachetti Village, Sivagangai District.

¶21

Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar, learned Additional Public

¶22

Prosecutor takes notice for the respondents. By consent, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶23

It is seen from the records that the second respondent has passed

¶24

the impugned order dated 04.09.2024 rejecting the writ petitioner's

¶25

2/8

¶26

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

¶27

W.P(MD)No.21641 of 2024

¶28

requisition. But a cursory perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the reasons assigned are formal in nature and hence, the same is liable to be quashed.

¶29

At this juncture, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents would submit that they may be permitted to conduct the Adal Padal programme on 15.09.2024 and the organizers may be directed to follow the conditions, which were given by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P(MD)No.12535 of 2023, dated 24.05.2023 .

¶30

At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner would submit that they will follow the directions of the Hon'ble Division Bench without any deviation.

¶31

It is necessary to refer the directions issued by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.P.(MD)No.12535 of 2023, dated 24.05.2023 .

¶32

“15. Therefore, this Court, in order to give a quietus to such issues, disposes of this writ petition with the following directions:

¶33

3/8

¶34

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

¶35

W.P(MD)No.21641 of 2024

¶36

(a) On the seventh day from the date of the receipt of the representation, for the conduct of the cultural program (Adal Padal), associated with any temple festival, if the authorities do not take steps either to grant permission or reject permission, there shall be a deemed permission on the eighth day;

¶37

(b) On such deemed permission, the organisers, who shall be the responsible members of the festival committee, shall ensure that only cultural programs having some relevance to the temple or the festival in question would be conducted and there shall not be any obscene display/dance being conducted;

¶38

(c) The program shall not extend beyond 10 p.m.;

¶39

(d) No women participating in the cultural program would be depicted or portrayed in an obscene or undignified manner either in the form of clothing or otherwise;

¶40

(e) The music that shall be used shall be in sync with the precincts of the temple and double meaning songs should not be played;

¶41

(f) There shall be no supply of alcohol or any intoxicating material in and around the area where cultural program is scheduled to be held;

¶42

In case of violation of any conditions, it is open to the authorities to initiate such action as is required under law and the persons who are the organisers/committee

¶43

4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

W.P(MD)No.21641 of 2024

¶45

members shall be held responsible. The Public Prosecutors shall ensure circulation of this order to the Superintendent of Police of all the Districts for issuing suitable instructions to their subordinate officers. No costs.”

¶46

It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the Director

¶47

General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai had issued a circular memorandum in Rc.007301/Genl.I (1)/2019, dated 09.04.2019, along with instructions to the Inspectors of Police throughout Tamil Nadu for consideration of applications seeking permission for conducting cultural programme. Therefore, in view of the detailed circular and guidelines issued by the Director General of Police and taking note of the undertaking on behalf of the writ petitioner that they will follow the direction of the Hon'ble Division Bench, the writ petitioner is directed to give a fresh representation to the second respondent and on receipt of the

¶48

same, the second respondent is directed to consider the same and pass suitable orders based on the above said circular within a period of two days from today (11.09.2024).

¶49

5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶50

W.P(MD)No.21641 of 2024

¶51

With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶52

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶53

11.09.2024

¶54

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

¶55

Note : Issue order copy today (11.09.2024)

¶56

¶57

1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tiruchirachetti, Sivagangai District.

¶58

2.The Inspector of Police, Tiruchirachetti Police Station, Sivagangai District.

¶59

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶60

6/8

¶61

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

¶62

W.P(MD)No.21641 of 2024

¶63

7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶64

W.P(MD)No.21641 of 2024

¶65

K.MURALI SHANKAR, J

¶66

csm

¶67

Order made in W.P.(MD)No.21641 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD)No.18279 of 2024

¶68

Dated : 11.09.2024

¶69

8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

B.Sivasankar v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Sivasankar v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Ajithaponnuswamy Vs The Superintendent of Police

Maneeswaran Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Jayaraj Vs The Superintendent of Police

Sneka Vs The Inspector of Police

Thiruchendur Murugan Vs The state rep by