Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1262 (MAD)

G. Chinnaiah v. Superintendent of Police, Madurai

2023-03-21

G.ILANGOVAN

body2023
JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the rejection order in Na.Ka.No. 15/Alangai.Ka.Ni./2023, dated 07.03.2023, passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to grant permission and protection to perform cultural events i.e., Adalpadal program scheduled to be held on 27.03.2023 “Panguni Festival” at Arulmigu Shree Sellathamman Thirukovil at Kondayampatti Village, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District.) 1. This writ petitioner filed this Writ Petition seeking for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the rejection order in Na.Ka.No.15/Alangai.Ka.Ni./2023, dated 07.03.2023, passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to grant permission and protection to perform cultural events i.e., Adalpadal program scheduled to be held on 27.03.2023 “Panguni Festival” at Arulmigu Shree Sellathamman Thirukovil at Kondayampatti Village, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District. 2. Mr.B.Nambiselvan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor takes notice for the respondents. By consent, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submitted that festival for the temple, by name, “Arulmigu Shree Sellathamman Thirukovil at Kondayampatti Village, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District, is going to be held on 27.03.2023. Subsequent to the same, in order to conduct a cultural programme on 27.03.2023, they sought permission of the police by giving a representation dated 07.03.2023. But, the second respondent has considered and rejected the said representation. Challenging the same, the writ petitioner has come before this Court for the above said relief. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents would submit that if fresh representation is given to the second respondent, the same will be considered. 5. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 6. It is noted that the second respondent police without considering the circular of the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai in Rc.007301/Genl.I (1)/2019 dated 09.04.2019 passed the impugned order. 7. In view of the circular issued by the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai in Rc.007301/Genl.I (1)/2019 dated 09.04.2019, rejection order in Na.Ka.No.15/Alangai.Ka.Ni./2023, dated 07.03.2023, passed by the 2nd respondent is hereby set aside. 7. In view of the circular issued by the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai in Rc.007301/Genl.I (1)/2019 dated 09.04.2019, rejection order in Na.Ka.No.15/Alangai.Ka.Ni./2023, dated 07.03.2023, passed by the 2nd respondent is hereby set aside. The writ petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation before the second respondent and on such representation, the second respondent shall consider the same and pass suitable orders based on the above said circular and the time for conducting the cultural programme may be fixed by the concerned authority, depending upon the situation in the locality. 8. With the above directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.