Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3219 (MAD)

Suresh v. Inspector of Police, Pavoorchathiram Police Station, Tirunelveli District

2015-10-05

S.VIMALA

body2015
ORDER Mr. D. Muruganandam, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 23.09.2015 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to grant permission for light and sound for conducting Kaniyan (Koothu) and Orchestra in the eve of Sri Suyambulingasamy temple festival of Pethanadarpatti village, Alangulam Taluk, Tiruenelveli District to be held on 13.10.2015. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the villagers jointly decided to conduct the festival with Kaniyan (Koothu) and Orchestra in the eve of Sri Suyambulingasamy temple festival of Pethanadarpatti village, Alangulam Taluk, Tiruenelveli District to be held on 13.10.2015. In this connection, a representation was given to the respondents police, with a request to grant permission to conduct the programme on the above said date, however, the second respondent Police has rejected the request of the petitioner, by impugned order dated 23.09.2015 and hence, the petitioner is before this Court with this Writ Petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that as the said festival is celebrated in a peaceful manner by the villagers, there will be no untoward incident by the people of the village. 5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, on instructions, would submit that the permission sought for by the petitioner may be granted with stringent conditions for maintaining law and order and also to avoid any untoward incident during performance of such programme. 6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the reason assigned for rejecting the permission is un-sustainable and hence, the impugned order dated 23.09.2015 is set aside. 7. Considering the rival submissions made on either side, this Court is of the view that necessary permission shall be granted to the petitioner and his Villagers to conduct “Kaniyan (Koothu) and Orchestra” in connection with the above said festival. 8. 7. Considering the rival submissions made on either side, this Court is of the view that necessary permission shall be granted to the petitioner and his Villagers to conduct “Kaniyan (Koothu) and Orchestra” in connection with the above said festival. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed with the following directions: (a) The programme in connection with Sri Suyambulingasamy temple festival of Pethanadarpatti village, Alangulam Taluk, Tiruenelveli District to be held on 13.10.2015 between 07.00 p.m and 10.30 p.m. (b) There should not be any kind of obscene dance or vulgar dialogues during the performance, by anyone of the participants; (c) Double meaning songs should not be played so as to spoil the minds of students and the youth; (d) No dance or songs, touching upon any political party or, community or caste be played; (e) No flex boards in support of any political party or religious leader be erected; (f) The function should not affect either religious or communal harmony and shall be conducted without any discrimination based on caste; (g) If there is any violation of any one of the conditions imposed, the concerned Police Officer is at liberty to take necessary action, as per law and stop such performance; (h) Similarly, the Police is empowered to stop the dance programme, if it exceeds beyond the permitted time. (i) the participants of the programme shall not intake any kind of intoxicating substance or liquor during the programme; (j) If there is any untoward incident, the organizers of the programme be responsible for the same; and (k) The second respondent is directed to issue necessary permission, incorporating the above conditions. No costs.