ORDER : (M. Nirmal Kumar, J.) (PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 14.12.2024 passed by the second respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to grant necessary permission and provide police protection for conducting the Minnoli Kabadi Tournament with loud speaker from 14.01.2025 at about 7.00 AM to 15.01.2025 at about 10.00 PM on the Immanuvel Ground situated at our Duraisamyapuram Village and a Sports events for school and college children, elders women from 16.01.2025 at about 8.00 AM to 17.01.2025 at about 11.00 P.M. on the Immanuvel Ground situated at our Duraisamyapuram Village and to address gratitude and distribute prizes and welfare measures on 17.01.2025 at Kalaiyarangam opposite to Immanuvel Ground situated at our Duraisamyapuram Village, Sivagiri Taluk, Thenkasi District as part of the Thai Pongal Festival.) The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the second respondent dated 14.12.2024, rejecting the petitioner's request to grant necessary permission and provide police protection for conducting the Minnoli Kabadi Tournament with loud speaker from 14.01.2025 at about 7.00 AM to 15.01.2025 till 10.00 PM in the Immanuvel Ground situated at Duraisamyapuram Village and Sports events for school and college children, elders and women from 16.01.2025 at about 8.00 AM to 17.01.2025 till 11.00 P.M. in the Immanuvel Ground situated at Duraisamyapuram Village. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that the reason cited in the impugned order is that the third respondent who has got nothing to do with the petitioner's village had earlier filed W.P.(MD)No. 28529 of 2024 and this Court by order dated 29.11.2024 had issued a direction to the third respondent therein to consider the third respondent herein's representation dated 08.10.2024, following the Circular of the Director General of Police, Chennai in Rc. 007301/Genl.I(1)/2019 dated 09.04.2019, along with instructions to the Inspectors of Police throughout Tamil Nadu for consideration of the applications seeking permission for conducting a programme. In view of the same, since already third respondent had applied for Kabadi Tournament on the same day, the petitioner's representation has been cancelled. He further submitted that the play ground in which the Kabadi Tournament is conducted is opposite to Immanueal Ground. 3. In view of the same, since already third respondent had applied for Kabadi Tournament on the same day, the petitioner's representation has been cancelled. He further submitted that the play ground in which the Kabadi Tournament is conducted is opposite to Immanueal Ground. 3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the second respondent, finding that there had been two tournaments on the same day, which may lead to clash and also finding that already third respondent approached this Court in W.P.(MD)No. 28529 of 2024, had rejected the plea of the petitioner. He further submitted that the second respondent would take appropriate decision considering the prevailing law and order situation and the ground reality with regard to the third respondent's petition for which the order is yet to be passed. 4. Learned Counsel for the third respondent would submit that in this case, the third respondent had already approached this Court in W.P.(MD)No.28529 of 2024 and this Court, by order dated 29.11.2024, had ordered the second respondent Inspector of Police, Sivagiri Police Station, to consider the third respondent's representation following the DGP's circular. Now, the petitioner's petition has been rejected. Hence, there is no possibility of any clash. He further submitted that the third respondent can be ordered to continue to hold the tournament. The petitioner, only for the purpose of clearing the obstruction had arrayed the third respondent as a party. The third respondent has nothing to do with the same. Hence, he prays for dismissal of this writ petition. 5. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds no reason to entertain the present Writ Petition. 6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.