Judgment :- 1. The Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction to grant permission to conduct jellikattu on 22.04.2012 in Mittur Village, Vellore District based on his representation dated 26.3.2012. The petitioner claims to be the President of Mittur Village. In his representation dated 26.3.2012 given to the District Collector, the petitioner wanted to conduct festival in Amman Temple and also to conduct Jellikattu during the period from 6 to 8 of May 2012. As part of the festival, they want to have Jellikattu on any one of the days. According to the petitioner, as per the orders passed by the State Government, in terms of the Tamil Nadu Act in Vaniyambadi Taluk in respect of Mittur Village, the place where Jellikattu can be celebrated is set out in Thirupathur-Alangayam Main Road. 2. In support of his contention, the petitioner produced a copy of the order passed by the Supreme Court dated 24.1.2011 in W.P.(Civil) No.14 of 2011 in Tamilar Veera Vilyattu J.P.K.K.N TR.SEC vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another and the subsequent order dated 1.2.2011 passed by the Supreme Court in Animal Welfare Board of India vs. A.Nagaraja and others reported in 2012 AIR SCW 1077, wherein in paragraph No.2, it has been directed as follows: "Having regard to the high number of persons injured and two deaths in a short period of 4-5 days, the District Collectors are directed to strictly apply the provisions of the Act and the directions/guidelines issued by this Court. If the casualties continue unabated, more stern or extreme steps may have to be taken in regard to entire event. Be that as it may." Therefore, it is for the petitioner to move the authorities with appropriate application. It is for the respondents to satisfy the bonafide request of the petitioner. This Court cannot give a direction especially when the Supreme Court has directed the District Collector to take appropriate steps. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, in paragraph No.9 it was observed as follows: ..as the 2nd respondent could accord permission only after the petitioner approach the appropriate court and obtained permission. Only then would the 2nd respondent be in a position to issue suitable permission and instructions for conducting the event smoothly and uneventfully." 4. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, in paragraph No.9 it was observed as follows: ..as the 2nd respondent could accord permission only after the petitioner approach the appropriate court and obtained permission. Only then would the 2nd respondent be in a position to issue suitable permission and instructions for conducting the event smoothly and uneventfully." 4. This stand of the respondents is clearly untenable as this Court has no power to grant any permission under the provisions of the Act. In fact as per the direction given by the Supreme Court vide order dated 1.2.2011 reported in 2012 AIR SCW 1077 (cited supra), it is for the District Collector to take action and he cannot pass on the burden to this Court and this Court can only render decisions in terms of litigations before it and cannot become an approval granting authorities. Approval has to be given only by the District Collector as per the directions of the Supreme Court. Hence, there is no case made out. Accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.