Judgment M. Jaichandren, J. 1. Heard Mr.K.K.Kannan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as Mr.K.Chellapandian, the learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr.B.Pugalendhi, the learned Special 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, forbearing the respondents from preventing the petitioner and his party men, from celebrating Thiyagi Immanual Sekaran Guru Poojai, scheduled to be conducted, on 11.09.2014, at Paramakudi, in Ramanathapuram District, using Taxies and hired vehicles to travel to Paramakudi. 3. Mr.K.K.Kannan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, had submitted that the petitioner is the President of "Makkal Vidhuthalai Katchi". He was a Member of the Tamil Nadu State Legislative Assembly, during the years, 2001 – 2006. He belongs to 'Pallar' Community, which is a Scheduled Caste Community. He had constructed a 'Samadhi' for Thiyagi Immanual Sekaran, at Paramakudi, in Ramanthapuram District, before 25 years. Every year, on the 11th of September, Thiyagi Immanual Sekaran death anniversary is being celebrated, as 'Guru Poojai day', paying homage to the veteran freedom fighter. While so, various restrictions have been imposed by the respondents, preventing the persons from reaching Paramakudi, to celebrate Thiyagi Immanual Sekaran memorial day, on 11.09.2014, by using taxies and hired vehicles. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition, before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Per contra, Mr.K.Chellapandian, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that certain restrictions have been imposed by the authorities concerned, during the celebration of Thiyagi Immanual Sekaran memorial day, on 11.09.2014, at Paramakudi, in Ramanathapuram District, in order to prevent the occurrence of law and order situations and to prevent loss of lives and properties. An order had been passed, under Section 144(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, last year, in ROC.No.C2/55960/2013, dated 08.09.2013, imposing certain restrictions, during the celebration of Thiyagi Immanual Sekaran memorial day, on 11.09.2013. 5. The learned Additional Advocate General had further submitted that a Division Bench of this Court had passed an order, dated 06.09.2013, in W.P.[MD].No.14728 of 2013, upholding the validity of the order, dated 08.09.2013. 5. The learned Additional Advocate General had further submitted that a Division Bench of this Court had passed an order, dated 06.09.2013, in W.P.[MD].No.14728 of 2013, upholding the validity of the order, dated 08.09.2013. An identical order had been passed, this year, with regard to the celebration of Thiyagi Immanual Sekaran memorial day, on 11.09.2014, by an order, dated 08.09.2014, made in ROC.C2.43400/2014. As such, the present Writ Petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed, in view of the earlier order passed by this Court, dated 06.09.2013, in W.P.[MD].No.14728 of 2013. 6. 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 and in view of the earlier order passed by this Court, dated 06.09.2013, in W.P.[MD].No.14728 of 2013, we are of the considered view that the present Writ Petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed, as it is devoid of merits. 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. 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.