Dismissed

K. Mareeshwaran v. The Superintendent of Police

Madras HC11 Aug 2025WP Crl.(MD)/842/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought police permission and protection for a traditional goat headbutting event (Keda Muttu) during a temple festival. The Court held such an event violates Section 11(1)(m)(ii) and (n) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960 and refused recognition, noting permission had been denied by police.

What did the court decide?

None granted; writ petition dismissed with no costs.

K. Mareeshwaran Vs The Superintendent of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

WP.Crl(MD)No.842 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 11.08.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

WP.Crl(MD)No.842 of 2025

K.Mareeshwaran

: Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶11

2.The Inspector of Police, Sivakasi East Police Station, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District. : Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant permission to conduct the traditional goat event (Kida Muttu) and to give adequate police protection for conducting the Kida Muttu, which is scheduled to be held on 04.09.2025, at Pothigai Nagar, Sivakasi East, Virudhunagar District, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 22.07.2025.

¶13

1/5

¶14

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

¶15

WP.Crl(MD)No.842 of 2025

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Manikandan

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent Police to grant permission and provide police protection for conducting Keda Muttu on 04.09.2025, by considering his representation dated 22.07.2025.

¶20

2.Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that more than 300 people are residing in the village and they plan to conduct “Kodai Vizha” at Arulmighu Vishwaroopa Karuppasamy Temple from 03.09.2025 to 05.09.2025. As a part of the above festival, they are planning to conduct traditional goat event, namely, “Keda Muttu” on 04.09.2025. In this regard, they sought for permission and protection from the second respondent Police vide representation dated 22.07.2025, however, no decision has been taken on the same till date. Therefore, he prayed for appropriate orders.

¶21

2/5

¶22

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

¶23

WP.Crl(MD)No.842 of 2025

¶24

3.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the request to conduct the Keda Muttu has been denied by the second respondent, by order dated 02.08.2025, since the allowing the same would lead to law and order problems and that no permission has been obtained from the Forest Department authorities.

¶25

4.This Court considered the submissions made by either side and perused the materials placed on record.

¶26

5.Keda Muttu is an event in which goats are made to engage in headbutting and striking each other. Such an event is clearly in violation of Sections 11(1)(m)(ii) and (n) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960, which penalizes any person who, solely with a view to providing entertainment, incites any animal to fight another animal or who organizes, keeps, uses or acts in the management of any place for animal fighting. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant recognition to such an event.

¶27

3/5

¶28

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

¶29

WP.Crl(MD)No.842 of 2025

¶30

6.Be that as it may, the petitioner has sought permission to conduct

¶31

Keda Muttu and filed this writ petition seeking a mandamus. Permission has been denied by the second respondent by order dated 02.08.2025 on the ground that it would lead to law and order problems and that permission from the wildlife authorities was not obtained. Since an order has now been passed, it is for the petitioner to challenge the same, in the manner known to law, if so advised.

¶32

Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.

¶33

Internet : Yes 11.08.2025 gk To

¶34

1.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶35

2.The Inspector of Police, Sivakasi East Police Station, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District.

¶36

4/5

¶37

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

¶38

WP.Crl(MD)No.842 of 2025

¶39

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶40

¶41

WP.Crl(MD)No.842 of 2025

¶42

11.08.2025

¶43

5/5

¶44

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

K. Mareeshwaran v. The Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Mareeshwaran 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

Mohanraj Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Suriya @ Suriya Prakash Vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by

Sangili @ Kaviyarasan @ Kaviyarasu Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by

A. Athikannan Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep.by its

Rahumathullah Vs The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by The Inspector of Police

Subramanian Vs The Inspector of Police