ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioners and the learned Additional Advocate General assisted by the learned Government Advocate for the official respondents and the learned counsel for the 10 th respondent / Sri Arulmighu Sundaraja Perumal Temple, Paramakudi. 2. The only question that calls for consideration is whether the amusement rides can be permitted in Vaigai river bed in the vicinity of Sri Arulmighu Sundaraja Perumal Temple, Paramakudi. 3. The learned Additional Advocate General opposes the writ prayer primarily by citing the order dated 18.04.2024 made in W.P.(MD)No.9860 of 2024. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners draws our attention to the permission granted by the Public Works Department right from 2017 onwards. The learned counsel for the petitioners state that atleast for the last 20 years and more, such amusement rides have been permitted. Only last year, the Hon'ble Division Bench took the view that instead of the river bed, the events can be conducted at alternative sites. Paragraph No.12 of the said order reads as follows:- “12. In support of this contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has provided four alternative sites, which are available in the locality. One is at Executive Engineer's Office of the Public Works Department, where larger extent of empty land is available. Second one is the land belonging to the respondent Paramakudi Municipality, next to Uzhavar Santhai. Thir one is Sandy Ground (Santhai Thidal), where there is a mini playground available. Fourth one is a playground of Government Boys Higher Secondary School. Apart from these four places, which have been as a suggestive places, other places, which are more suitable for locating this kind of equipments can be found out by the respondents ie., Public Works Department and Municipality, where this kind of permission can be given.” 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners in unison state that conducting the event only in the river bed alone would be feasible in the vicinity of the temple and conducting the event at far away site would not be feasible and that is why, notwithstanding the permission granted by the Division Bench to conduct the event at the alternative site, no event was actually conducted. 5. Even the prayer in that writ petition was that the amusement rides should not be allowed to be conducted without getting prior permission from the authorities. 5. Even the prayer in that writ petition was that the amusement rides should not be allowed to be conducted without getting prior permission from the authorities. Under no circumstances, river bed should be damaged. It is a matter of record that permission for conducting the event was in fact permitted vide order dated 22.03.2024 in W.P.(MD)No.5194 of 2024. No appeal was filed against the said order. When the order made in W.P.(MD)No.5194 of 2024 was not set aside in the manner known to law, we fail to understand as to how its legal effect can be overcome in a PIL filed at the instance of a third party. In any event, we do not find any blanket prohibition issued for all times to come in the order dated 18.04.2024 in W.P.(MD)No.9860 of 2024. 6. We take note of the fact that such events have been traditionally permitted. The prime objection appears to be that 1500 cusecs of water would be released from the Vaigai dam and that they are likely to reach Paramakudi on 14.05.2024. 7. It is submitted by the petitioners that last year, 1700 cusecs of water was released and yet it flowed only on one side of the river and that since the event would be conducted on the upper reach of the river, the flow of the water is not likely to affect them. We do not want to enter into this factual aspect. We make it clear that if the flow of water in the river reaches the spot where the amusement events are to be conducted, the fourth respondent shall pass a directive to stop the events. It shall be complied with without any demur. It is stated that the petitioners would submit a joint application to the authority concerned. Once such a joint application in the names of Pandi Durai, Manikandan, Karthikeyan and Prabhakar is submitted, the authorities concerned shall grant permission forthwith. The authority concerned shall demarcate the areas by taking into account the earlier practice. It is also open to the authorities to lay down suitable conditions and collect appropriate charges from the applicants. Since permission has been directed to be granted pursuant to the order of this Court, the question of State assuming liability will not arise at all. It is the look out of the organizers concerned. 8. These Writ Petitions are allowed accordingly. No costs.