ORDER 1. One has to visit Porbandar in Gujarat to celebrate Mahathama Gandhi’s birthday or Allahabad in Uttar Pradesh to celebrate Pandit Jawarharlal Nehru’s birthday, if the contention of the petitioner is to be accepted. It is not necessary to visit the birth place of any leader to pay homage or to celebrate his/her birthday. 2. The petitioner who is claiming himself as a Secretary of Tamil Nadu State Youth Wing of Mamannar Poolithevar Pasarai has come before this Court seeking a direction to the second respondent to give adequate police protection and accord permission for using sound system for the Mamannar Poolithevar 297th birthday celebration at Nerkattan Seval Palayam, Sivagiri Taluk, Tirunelveli District. 3. The petitioner claims that for the past three years, he has been conducting birthday celebration of the aforesaid Mamannar and this year he has to celebrate 297th birthday at the birth place of Mammanar Poolithevar (i.e) Nerkattan Seval Palayam, Tiruenelveli District. As part of celebration, he intended to garland the aforesaid Mamannar Poolithevar statute, at 11.00 a.m orchestra programme, at 1. p.m Annadhanam, 3.00 p.m speech contest about the history of Mamannar Poolithevar and at 5.00 p.m a public meeting, wherein as many as 13 leaders of various organizations would participate as Special Guests including in the Zamindahar of Nerkattan Seval. Therefore, he seeks for police protection for the said function and made a representation in this regard on 21.8.2012. Since, no permission has been granted, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. On the other hand, a detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent contending that there are two factions of Thevar community in Nerkattan Seval Palayam village and one group is headed by Ms. Gomathi Muthu Rani Thurachi, who is the hereditary heir of the Mamannar Pooli Thevan and the opposite group is lead by one Mr. Pandiarajan, who is the present Councillor of Vasudevanallur Panchayat Union. The petitioner was once associated with the Councillor Pandiarajan used to celebrate Mamannar Pooli Thevan birthday anniversary on behalf of the Mamannar Poolithevan Memorial Trust which is headed by one M.Natarajan. The petitioner herein was earlier associated with the said M. Natarajan and presently, there is a difference of opinion between M. Natarajan and Pandiarajan and the petitioner heren. Therefore, the petitioner has formed a group of his own and wants to show his popularity and strength. The petitioner herein was earlier associated with the said M. Natarajan and presently, there is a difference of opinion between M. Natarajan and Pandiarajan and the petitioner heren. Therefore, the petitioner has formed a group of his own and wants to show his popularity and strength. Already, there are two factions having difference of opinion with regard to ‘Mudhal Maryadai’ in the temples of the said village. In view of that, an FIR in Crime No.141 of 2012 under Section 107 IPC was registered on 7.5.2012. 5. The two factions are having enemity out of local body election as the group headed by the Pandiarajan won the election. In view of that, the other group headed by Ms. Gomathi Muthu Rani Thurachi, to settle her score, is instigating the petitioner to celebrate the anniversary on 1.9.2012. Therefore, the said group is fully behind and backing the petitioner. If the petitioner is granted permission to celebrate the anniversary, certainly, the second group headed by Councillor Pandiarajan will resort to untoward activities resulting in law and order problem. Therefore, no permission was granted to the petitioner. 6. Mr. D. Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there will not be any law and order problem as contended by the prosecution and the petitioner only wants to felicitate Mamannar Pooli Thevar, who fought against British regime. He would submit that the petitioner is ready to comply with any condition to be imposed by this Court. 7. Mrs.S.Prabha, learned Government advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that taking into account the local problems only, the permission was not granted to the petitioner. She would further submit that the petitioner is not from the very same Taluk, but he is from neighboring Taluk. 8. As stated in the counter affidavit in detail, there are already two groups which are at logger heads. Because of the dispute with regard to offering “Mudhal Mariyadhai” in temples in the village, FIR in Crime No. 141 of 2012 under Section 107 IPC is stated to be registered on 7.5.2012. It is seen that in the local body election, one group defeated the other one and the defeated group wants to settle the score by instigating the petitioner. 9. The birthday of Mamannar Poolithevan, who fought against mighty British regime, definitely has to be celebrated. It is seen that in the local body election, one group defeated the other one and the defeated group wants to settle the score by instigating the petitioner. 9. The birthday of Mamannar Poolithevan, who fought against mighty British regime, definitely has to be celebrated. However, in the name of birthday celebration of the said hero, public peace and tranquility cannot be allowed to be disturbed, especially, when the police, taking into a ground realities into consideration and refused permission. It is seen that southern part of this State is often disturbed by communal tension and disturbance resulting in loss of life and damage to properties. This Court cannot loose sight of the aforesaid situation prevailing in these districts, though in this case the groups belong to the same community. 10. The Honourable Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and Another v. Dr. Praveen Bhai Thogadia (2004) SCC (Crl) 1387 held in para 6 as follows: “6. Courts should not normally interfere with matters relating to law and order which is primarily the domain of the administrative authorities concerned. They are by and large the best to assess and to handle the situation depending upon the peculiar needs and necessities within their special knowledge. Their decision may involve to some extent an element of subjectivity on the basis of materials before them. Past conduct and antecedents of a person or group or an organization may certainly provide sufficient material or basis for the action contemplated on a reasonable expectations of possible turn of events, which may need to be avoided in public interest and maintenance of law and order.” When the law enforcing agency has taken a decision assessing various factors and law and order problem, this Court cannot take a different view. Permission was refused with the object of maintenance of law and order or prevention of acts leading to disorder or disturbance of tranquility. This Court cannot sit on appeal over the decision of the authority which is alone competent to deal with the law and order situation in the State. Therefore, the direction sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. 11. If really the petitioner wants to felicitate and honour the great Mamannar Poolithevan, he can do so at his place. He can also do social work, feed the poor and help Orphanages/ Old Age homes benefitting many deserving people. Therefore, the direction sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. 11. If really the petitioner wants to felicitate and honour the great Mamannar Poolithevan, he can do so at his place. He can also do social work, feed the poor and help Orphanages/ Old Age homes benefitting many deserving people. If done, it will be a befitting tribute to the memory of the great King. 12. With the above observations, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. No cost. Petition dismissed.