Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 4077 (MAD)

U. Mohamed Mohideen v. Superintendent of Police

2014-10-31

M.VENUGOPAL

body2014
Judgment 1. Heard Mr. S.C. Herold Singh, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. V. Muruganandam, the Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. R. Anand, the Learned Counsel appearing for impleading Petitioner/proposed R4 in M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2014. 2. According to the Petitioner, the Petitioner's area happens to be a Place of Harmony, where people belongs to various Castes, Creed and Religion live together. The only Festival, which make them together is the 'Moharrum' Festival. The same has been celebrated in their area from time immemorial. Every year, the said Festival would be conducted by the Committee, which has been formed in the name and style of 'Leppai, Valavu, Hassan, Hussain Pallivasal Nirvaga Kulu', which is a registered body with the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, bearing Registration No.820/1960. 3. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner urges before this Court that, as a part of the 'Moharrum' Festival, several programs will be conducted to offer worships and entertainment for public, the same would be commenced at 4.00 p.m., on 25.10.2014 at 'Leppai Valavu Savady' ground by hoisting the Flag and by taking the Flag around the Village. The next program will be on 01.11.2014, which commences at 4.00 p.m., on the same Venue, wherein 'Panchaa' would be taken on the Horse and it would be taken around the Village. On 03.11.2014 at 9.00 p.m., Musical Party has been arranged. On 04.11.2014, at 2.00 a.m., 'Santhana Koodu' will be taken as a procession around the Village from the said ground. After that, the said 'Santhana Koodu' will be taken to the 6th Street and the function will be concluded by 10.00 p.m., on the same day i.e., on 04.11.2014. 4. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that a group of people formed a rival group and started to oppose the said function for the reasons best known to them. Further, during last year, several Writ Petitions and Criminal Original Petitions were also filed by both the parties. Added further, a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.17998 of 2013 was filed during last year, while there is a proposal to conduct the festival between 04.11.2013 and 03.12.2013. Further, during last year, several Writ Petitions and Criminal Original Petitions were also filed by both the parties. Added further, a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.17998 of 2013 was filed during last year, while there is a proposal to conduct the festival between 04.11.2013 and 03.12.2013. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the Court observed that ' in the last hour it is not in a position to resolve the issue and therefore, the parties are directed to abide by the last year Peace Committee Meeting Resolution. 5. The subsequent plea of the Petitioner is that after consulting with several Muslim Associations in and around that area, the Jammath had given consent to celebrate the Festival by 'Panchaa' and 'Santhanakoodu' and based on the approval given by the various Jammath, the function was celebrated in the previous year. Even for the current year, they made an application to the 3rd Respondent on 29.09.2014 along with the application for sound services. Since no effective steps are initiated by the Respondents in regard to grant of permission, he approached the Respondents 1 and 2, by a communication, dated 13.10.2014. Since it evoke no response, he filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.17128 of 2014 and on 17.10.2014, this Court passed an order, which runs as follows:- "6. In view of the limited relief sought for by the Petitioner from this Court to issue necessary direction to the Respondents 1 to 3 in regard to granting of permission and adequate Police protection to celebrate the 'Moharrum Festival' at Leppai Valaivu Ground and the Streets thereto from 25.10.2014 at 4.00 p.m., onwards to 04.11.2014 at 10.00 p.m., as per the schedule etc., this Court, on the basis of Equity, Fair Play, Good Conscious and even as a matter of prudence, directs the 2nd Respondent (who is said to be the proper Authority) to consider the representation of the Petitioner, dated 13.10.2014 in Fair, Just, and objective manner and to dispose of the said representation on merits, by passing a speaking order, on or before 22.10.2014, (of course, after providing due opportunities to the Petitioner and other concerned parties, if any), by adhering to the principles of natural justice." 6. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner proceeds to state that the said Order of this Court, dated 17.10.2014 in W.P.(MD) No.17128 of 2014 was communicated to the Respondents. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner proceeds to state that the said Order of this Court, dated 17.10.2014 in W.P.(MD) No.17128 of 2014 was communicated to the Respondents. After receiving the same, the impugned order was passed by the 2nd Respondent on 24.10.2014, whereby and whereunder, only for three functions/events, permission was granted and in respect of others, it was negatived. 7. At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently projects an argument that the impugned order passed by the 2nd Respondent, dated 24.10.2014 is an illegal one in so far as it reveals that non-application of mind by the 2nd Respondent. Furthermore, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner takes a stand that the impugned order dated 24.10.2014 passed by the 2nd Respondent infringes the Rights guaranteed under Articles 25 to 28 of the Constitution of India. Also that, Right to Worship of a particular person should not interfere with the others Right and in the instant case on hand, the Rights of the Petitioner to continuously do the said Festival is being prevented by the Respondents. 8. Yet another argument advanced on behalf of the Petitioner is that the 2nd Respondent in the impugned order, dated 24.10.2014 has referred six pending cases in various Crime numbers of Ervadi Police Station and S.Nos.2 and 3 mentioned in the impugned order relate to the Proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C., and other cases relate to I.P.C., offences, which were registered against the aggressors. In so far as the Crime No.288 of 2013, on the file of Ervadi Police Station is concerned, the same pertains to the Petitioner against whom a case is registered. 9. In pith and substance, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner makes a plea before this Court that the impugned order dated 24.10.2014 passed by the 2nd Respondent is liable to be interfered with by this Court and set aside in the interest of justice, since equality before the Law and equal protection of Law have been violated in the present case and more so, when the functions of 'Panchaa' and 'Santhana Koodu' were being conducted in all other areas. 10. Per contra, Mr. 10. Per contra, Mr. V. Muruganandam, the Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents 1 to 3 brings it to the notice of this Court that the impugned order, dated 24.10.2014 was passed by the 2nd Respondent, after taking note of over all assumption of entire facts and circumstances of the present case and the said order is perfectly legal and valid and to prevent disturbance of any Law and Order problem only, the permission in issue was negatived. 11. At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the impleading Petitioner/the proposed 4th Respondent submits that the Petitioner in M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2014 has filed the present Impleading Petition to implead him as 4th Respondent in the main Writ Petition W.P.(MD) No.17352 of 2014, based on the reason that during the current year, on 24.10.2014, a Peace Committee Meeting was held in the presence of Tahsildar and the 2nd Respondent, based on the orders passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.17128 of 2014, dated 17.10.2014, wherein the present Writ Petitioner ( in W.P.(MD)No.17352 of 2014) had also taken part. 12. The prime submission advanced on behalf of the impleading Petitioner before this Court is that on earlier occasion also a Peace Committee Meeting took place under the Head of Tahsildar, Nanguneri on 14.12.2010 and in the said Peace Committee Meeting, all the Representatives of the Jammath had taken part, whereby and whereunder, a final conclusion was arrived at, in which three events alone viz., 'Mouluduthu Oothutha, a Meeting so as to detail and Preach Islamic Commencement and Competition for children for recitation of 'Quraan', since at that point of time, there was an apprehension that the 4th Respondent and his men may go in there on own accord towards defeating from these said conditions imposed. Also that, in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15116 of 2010 an order was passed on 16.10.2010 by this Court, directing the Police to ensure that the said Resolution were being strictly followed and further directed to accord Police protection for the Festival. 13. Even during the year 2011, in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15843 of 2011, the very same order was passed on 02.12.2011 and that year also, the same system of conducting 'Moharam' Festival was directed to be observed. Later in W.P.(MD)No.17998 of 2013, an order was passed on 20.11.2012 whereby, the very same direction was given by this Court. 13. Even during the year 2011, in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15843 of 2011, the very same order was passed on 02.12.2011 and that year also, the same system of conducting 'Moharam' Festival was directed to be observed. Later in W.P.(MD)No.17998 of 2013, an order was passed on 20.11.2012 whereby, the very same direction was given by this Court. Further, in W.P.(MD) No.17998 of 2013, a direction was sought for by the impleading Petitioner so as to direct the Respondents to ensure that the Peace Committee Resolution are being followed. Also that, one Sheik Mohammed, who is the Associate of the 4th Respondent has also caused his intervention and prayed for permitting him to introduce the additional events, which were not allowed in the Resolution on 03.10.2013, while passing the interim order, this Court, categorically negatived his request. 14. The core plea taken on behalf of the impleading Petitioner despite no permission being granted by this Court, the 4th Respondent and his Associates unmindful of the interim order, dated 08.11.2013 in W.P.(MD)No.17998 of 2013 had started doing activities relating to procession and lifting of 'Paancha'. Even at the commencement of the same, according to the impleading Petitioner, the entire Jamaath and the general public had strongly opposed the same, as a result of which, the 4th Respondent and his men had created a commotion etc., 15. During the last leg of argument, the Learned Counsel for the impleading Petitioner contends that the grievance of the Petitioner in regard to pressing in all new items of events cannot be allowed because of the strong opposition of other in toto and also that the 3rd Respondent has managed to Register a number of criminal cases in that connection. 16. 16. On careful consideration of respective contentions and this Court taking note of the entire conspectus of the attendant facts and circumstances of the present case in an integral fashion, and also this Court taking note of the earlier Court proceedings and orders passed thereon initiated by the parties concerned, and also this Court bearing in mind of an important fact that nearly six cases were registered against the concerned parties, (as made mention of by the 2nd Respondents in the impugned order, dated 24.10.2014) and also this Court keeping in mind yet another fact that the 2nd Respondent had passed the impugned order of rejection in so far as it relates to 'Kuthirai Paancha' and 'Santhana Koodu' procession (if they are permitted to be conducted, then, there are possibilities of cropping up of Law and Order problem etc., between the two parties, like what it had happened during last year), this Court, on a careful scrutiny of the impugned order, dated 24.10.2014, passed by the 2nd Respondent, comes to an inevitable, inescapable and irresistible conclusion that the 2nd Respondent had taken note of the entire prevailing facts and circumstances of the case in a proper and realistic fashion and the order of refusal passed by the 2nd Respondents, dated 24.10.2014 in so far as it relates to the conduct of 'Kuthirai Paancha' and 'Santhana Koodu' procession cannot be found fault with, based on the facts and circumstances of the present case, which float on the surface. Consequently, the Writ Petition fails. 17. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions, M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014 and M.P(MD)No.2 of 2014 are closed.