Judgment M. Jaichandren, J. 1. Heard Mr. R. Alagumani, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as Mr. K. Chellapandian, the learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. N.S. Karthikeyan, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant permission and to provide adequate police protection to celebrate Thiyagi Immanuvel Sekaranar death anniversary, scheduled to be held, on 11.09.2014, at Ulavar Santhai Ground, Trichy, by considering the representation of the petitioner, dated 19.08.2014. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner belongs to Devendrakula Velalar Community, which is known as 'Pallar' Community, in the State of Tamil Nadu. It is a suppressed and marginalized community, and therefore, it has been classified as a Scheduled Caste Community. The petitioner is the District President of Makkal Marumalarchi Kalagam, Trichy District. 4. The learned counsel had further submitted that a sizable number of persons, belonging to Devendrakula Velalar Community, are residing in the various districts of the State of Tamil Nadu. Thiyagi Immanuvel Sekaranar is a freedom fighter, belonging to Devendrakula Velalar Community. He was born, on 09.10.1924. He had also participated in the Quit India Movement, during the year, 1942. He had served in the Indian Army, as a Hawildar. He had died, on 11.09.1957. The death anniversary of Thiyagi Immanuvel Sekaranar is being celebrated on the 11th of September, every year, at Paramakudi, in Ramanathapuram District. However, it is alleged that the gathering of a large number of political leaders and the other persons at Paramakudi, to celebrate the death anniversary of Thiyagi Immanuvel Sekaranar, has been causing innumerable hardships for the various sections of the society and has also led to law and order situations, disturbing the normal life of the people living in the area concerned. In such circumstances, it had been decided to celebrate Thiyagi Immanuvel Sekaranar death anniversary, at Ulavar Santhai Ground, Trichy, and therefore, the petitioner had sent a representation, dated 19.08.2014, to the various authorities, including the respondents herein, seeking necessary permission for conducting the death anniversary celebration of Thiyagi Immanuvel Sekaranar, on 11.09.2014, at Ulavar Santhai Ground, Trichy. However, there has been no positive response from the authorities concerned, till date. However, there has been no positive response from the authorities concerned, till date. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition, before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had placed before this Court the following decisions in support of his contentions:- (i) Himat Lal K. Shah Vs. Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad, reported in AIR 1973 SC 87 , (ii) Crl.O.P[MD].No.12925 of 2012, dated 30.08.2012, (iii) W.P.[MD].No.14728 of 2013, dated 06.09.2013, (iv) W.P.[MD].No.14932 of 2013, dated 10.09.2013. 6. The learned counsel had also pointed out that this Court had passed orders, in W.P. [MD].No.14728 of 2013, dated 06.09.2013 and in W.P.[MD].No.14932 of 2013, dated 10.09.2013, recording the arrangements made by the police and the other authorities concerned, for maintaining public order and to prevent the disturbance of public tranquility and to prevent loss of lives and properties, during the celebrations. 7. Mr. K. Chellapandian, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the representation made by the petitioner, dated 19.08.2014, seeking permission for conducting the death anniversary celebration of Thiyagi Immanuvel Sekaranar, on 11.09.2014, at Ulavar Santhai Ground, Anna Nagar, Thennur, Trichy, had been considered and an order had been passed, by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, Tiruchirappalli City. He had also placed a copy of the said order, before this Court. The said order reads as follows:- "The petitioner Tr.Murugavel, District President, Makkal Marumalarchi Kalagam, Tiruchirappalli, has submitted petition requesting permission to pay homage to the portrait of Thiyagi Immanuel Sekaran at Uzhavar Santhai, Anna Nagar, Thennur in Thillainagar PS limits, on 11.09.2014. The petitioner further stated that, thousands of cadres will be attending the homage from Tiruchirappalli Rural, Karur, Namakkal, Thanjavur and Dindigul Districts. The permission for above mentioned homage function is denied due to the following reasons. 1. The death anniversary of Thiyagi Immanuel Sekaran is being celebrated at Paramakudi on the same day and most of the police force will be drawn from every districts and cities for the bandobust. Hence, providing sufficient police bandobust is practically not feasible. 2. The petitioner has stated that thousands of cadres will gather from the neighboring districts and if permission is granted for the homage in a new place, there are possibilities of Law and Order problems in the city. 3. Hence, providing sufficient police bandobust is practically not feasible. 2. The petitioner has stated that thousands of cadres will gather from the neighboring districts and if permission is granted for the homage in a new place, there are possibilities of Law and Order problems in the city. 3. Further, road laying works are being carried out in Uzhavar Santhai area and schools, Court and Hospitals are functioning in the surrounding area and it may create Traffic congestion at the Uzhavar Santhai areas. For the above mentioned reasons, the permission is denied to observe homage to the portrait of Thiyagi Immanuel Sekaran." 8. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available, it is noted that the representation submitted by the petitioner, dated 19.08.2014, had been considered and an order had been passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, Tiruchirappalli City, dated 03.09.2014, rejecting the request of the petitioner, for conducting the death anniversary celebration of Thiyagi Immanuvel Sekaranar, on 11.09.2014, at Ulavar Santhai Ground, Anna Nagar, Thennur, Trichy. Reasons have been stated, by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, Tiruchirappalli City, for rejecting the request of the petitioner, by his order, dated 03.09.2014. 9. It is also noted that the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the authorities concerned, for granting permission to conduct the death anniversary celebration of Thiyagi Immanuvel Sekaranar, on 11.09.2014, based on his representation, dated 19.08.2014. However, the said request had been rejected, by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, Tiruchirappalli City, by his order, dated 03.09.2014. In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to grant the relief, as prayed for, by him, in the present Writ Petition, at this stage. We are conscious of the fact that the Supreme Court has made it clear, in a number of decisions, including its decision, in State of Karnataka Vs. Praveen Bhai Thogaida, reported in AIR 2004 SC 2081 : 2004 (4) SCC 684 , that the Courts should not, normally, interfere with the matters relating to law and order, which is primarily in the domain of the administrative authorities concerned. Praveen Bhai Thogaida, reported in AIR 2004 SC 2081 : 2004 (4) SCC 684 , that the Courts should not, normally, interfere with the matters relating to law and order, which is primarily in the domain of the administrative authorities concerned. They are, by and large, in the best position to assess and to handle the situation, depending upon the peculiar needs and necessities, within their special knowledge. The Court cannot, in such matters, substitute its views for that of the competent authorities. As such, we find it appropriate to dismiss the present Writ Petition. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.`