Madras High Court
D.Veerappan vs The Inspector Of Police on 28 February, 2014
Author: V.Ramasubramanian
Bench: V.Ramasubramanian
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28-02-2014 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.Nos.4204, 4260, 4261, 4264, 4272, 4273, 4310 and 4335, 4343, 4384, 4412, 4446, 4447, 4454, 4455, 4458, 4480, 4537, 4580, 4591, 4593, 4611, 4638, 4772, 4803, 4876, 4877, 4909, 4913, 4919 to 4922, 4933, 4948, 4949, 5157 & 5464 of 2014 D.Veerappan .. Petitioner in WP 4204/2014 R.Subramaniam .. Petitioner in WP 4260/2014 P.Manikkam .. Petitioner in WP 4261/2014 Gurusamy .. Petitioner in WP 4264/2014 A.Murthy .. Petitioner in WP 4272/2014 A.Balasubramaniyam .. Petitioner in WP 4273/2014 P.Ponnusamy .. Petitioner in WP 4310/2014 S.Pushparaj .. Petitioner in WP 4335/2014 S.Thangam .. Petitioner in WP 4343/2014 K.Santhakumar .. Petitioner in WP 4384/2014 G.Palani .. Petitioner in WP 4412/2014 S.Kulandaivel .. Petitioner in WP 4446/2014 Palaniappan .. Petitioner in WP 4447/2014 N.Rathinavel .. Petitioner in WP 4454/2014 S.J.Anandababu .. Petitioner in WP 4455/2014 V.Dinesh .. Petitioner in WP 4458/2014 A.P.R.Shanmugam .. Petitioner in WP 4480/2014 G.Devaraj .. Petitioner in WP 4537/2014 Kovindaraj .. Petitioner in WP 4580/2014 Varadhan .. Petitioner in WP 4591/2014 Mohanraj .. Petitioner in WP 4593/2014 P.Palanimuthu .. Petitioner in WP 4611/2014 M.Irusagoundar .. Petitioner in WP 4638/2014 Raja .. Petitioner in WP 4772/2014 D.Sengupregupathy .. Petitioner in WP 4803/2014 R.N.Periyasamy .. Petitioner in WP 4876/2014 S.Kathirvel .. Petitioner in WP 4877/2014 R.Ravikumar .. Petitioner in WP 4909/2014 Palani .. Petitioner in WP 4913/2014 A.Venkatachalam .. Petitioner in WP 4919/2014 K.Selvam (a) Thiruvengadam .. Petitioner in WP 4920/2014 S.Rathinavel .. Petitioner in WP 4921/2014 K.Karthi .. Petitioner in WP 4922/2014 C.Saravanan .. Petitioner in WP 4948/2014 N.Murugan .. Petitioner in WP 4949/2014 M.Thangarasu .. Petitioner in WP 5157/2014 G.Srinivasan .. Petitioner in WP 5464/2014 vs. The Inspector of Police, Velagoundenpatti Police Station, Namakkal District. .. Respondent in WP 4204/2014 The Inspector of Police, Puduchittram Police Station, Namakkal District. .. Respondent in WP 4260/2014 The Inspector of Police, Karattupalayam Police Station, Namakkal District. .. Respondent in WP 4261/2014 The Inspector of Police, Molasi Police Station, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District. .. Respondent in WP 4264/2014 The Inspector of Police, Valapadi Police Station, Salem District. .. Respondent in WP 4272/2014 The Superintendent of Police, Erode District, Erode. .. R-1 in WPs 4273 & 4803/2014 The Inspector of Police, Kodumudi Police Station, Kodumudi, Erode District. .. R-2 in WP 4273/2014 The Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur District. .. R-1 in WP 4310/2014 The Inspector of Police, Anupparpalayam Police Station, Tiruppur District. .. R-2 in WP 4310/2014 The Superintendent of Police, Namakkal District. .. R-1 in WP 4355/2014 The Inspector of Police, Pallipalayam Police Station, Namakkal District. .. R-2 in WP 4355/2014 The Inspector of Police, Kakapalayam Police Station, Salem District. .. Respondent in WP 4343/2014 The Inspector of Police, Mallur Police Station, Salem District. .. Respondent in WP 4358/2014 The Inspector of Police, Kaniyambadi Police Station, Vellore District. .. Respondent in WP 4412/2014 The Inspector of Police, Velagoundampatty Police Station, Namakkal District. .. Respondent in WP 4446/2014 The Inspector of Police, Magudanchavadi Police Station, Kakapalayam. .. Respondent in WP 4447/2014 The Superintendent of Police Namakkal District. .. R-1 in WP 4454/2014 The Inspector of Police Namagiripettai Police Station Rasipuram (TK) Namakkal District. .. R-2 in WP 4454/2014 The Superintendent of Police Vellore District. .. R-1 in WP 4455/2014 The Inspector of Police Vanniam Police Station Vaniampadi (TK) Vellore District. .. R-2 in WP 4455/2014 The Inspector of Police, Vaniyambadi Taluk Police Station, Vellore District. .. Respondent in WP 4458/2014 The Inspector of Police, Mohanur Police Station, Namakkal District. .. Respondent in WP 4480/2014 The Inspector of Police, Ambur Taluk Police Station, Vellore District. .. Respondent in WP 4537/2014 The Inspector of Police, Vaniyambadi Taluk Police Station, Vellore District. .. Respondent in WP 4580/2014 The Inspector of Police, Nallur Police Station, Namakkal District. .. Respondent in WP 4591/2014 The Inspector of Police, Nallur Police Station, Namakkal District. .. Respondent in WP 4593/2014 The Inspector of Police, Sankari Police Station, Salem. .. Respondent in WP 4611/2014 The Superintendent of Police District Police OFfice Erode District. .. R-1 in W.P.No.4638/2014 The Inspector of Police Ammapettai Police Station Ammapettai, Erode District. .. R-2 in W.P.No.4638/2014 The Superintendent of Police Salem District Salem. .. R-1 in W.P.No.4772/2014 The Inspector of Police Kannaguruchi Police Station Salem District, Salem. .. R-2 in W.P.No.4772/2014 The Inspector of Police, Malayampalayam Police Station, Malayampalayam, Erode District. .. R2 in WP 4803/2014 The Sub Inspector of Police Malayampalayam Police Station Erode District. .. Respondent in WP 4876/2014 The Sub Inspector of Police Malayampalayam Police Station Erode District. .. Respondent in WP 4877/2014 The Inspector of Police (Rural), Karattupalayam Police Station, Karattupalayam, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District. .. Respondent in WP 4909/2014 The Inspector of Police, Vellore Taluk Police Station, Vellore District. .. Respondent in WP 4913/2014 1.The Superintendent of Police, Salem District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Annadhanapatti Police Station, Salem. .. Respondents in WPs 4919, 4920, 4921 & 4922/2014 The Inspector of Police, Kurusillapattu Police Station, Vellore District. .. Respondent in WP 4933/2014 The Inspector of Police, Magudamchavadi Police Station, Salem District. .. Respondent in WP 4948/2014 The Inspector of Police, Idappadi Police Station, Salem District. .. Respondent in WP 4949/2014 District Superintendent of Police Namakkal District, Namakkal. .. R-1 in WP 5157/2014 Inspector of Police Velagoundampatti Police Station Namakkal District. .. R-2 in WP 5157/2014 The Sub Inspector of Police Nallur, Kandampalayam Post Namakkal District. .. R-3 in WP 5157/2014 The Inspector of Police Sooramangalam Police Station Salem. .. Respondent in WP 5464/2014 W.P.No.4204 of 2014 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to permit the petitioner to conduct the Cultural and Entertainment Programme, Folk dance at Sri Draupathi Amman Temple, Pranthagam, Velagoundenpatti Post, Paramathi-Velur Taluk, Namakkal District on 1.3.2014. W.P.No.4260 of 2014 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent authority to given permission to conduct the dance programme at Karakurichi Pudur, Pudurchittram, Namakkal Taluk and District 637 014, festival of Karakurichi Mariamman Koil Pongal Thiruvila on 17.2.2014, by the petitioner's representation dated 30.1.2014. W.P.No.4261 of 2014 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent authority to give permission to conduct the dance programme at Perithee Athipalayam, Panneruthipalauam Post, Thiruchengodu Taluk Namakkal District, festival of Perithee Sri Puthumariamman Koil Thiruvula on 19.2.2014, by the petitioner's representation dated 4.2.2014. W.P.No.4264 of 2014 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent herein to grant permission to the petitioner to conduct dance and cultural programmes on 20.2.2014 at Sri Mariamman Kovil, Potteli Palayam Emmapalli Village, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District. W.P.No.4272 of 2014 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent authority to give permission to conduct the dance programme at Pattappan Koil Valapadi Post, Valapadi Taluk Salem District 636 115, festival of Valapadi Pattappan Koil Mariamman Thiruvila on 18.2.2014, representation dated 11.2.2014. W.P.No.4273 of 2014 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to give permission to conduct the dance programme in the event of Sri Pudhu Marriamman Koil Festival on 16.2.2014 at North Street, Kodumudi Town and Post, Erode District. W.P.No.4310 of 2014 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to grant permission to conduct cultural program in Sri Marriamman and Bagawathiamman Temple Kumbabisagam Festival is scheduled to be held on 20.2.2014 at Sri Marriamman and Bagawathiamman Temple Kumbabisegam, Valayapalayam, Avinashi Taluk, Tiruppur District, from 7 P.M., to 10.30 P.M., by considering the petitioner's representation dated 6.2.2014. W.P.No.4355 of 2014 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to grant permission to conduct cultural program in Sri Kannimar temple festival scheduled to be held on 21.2.2014 at Sri Kannimar Temple festival, Elanthakuttaivillage, Thiruchenkodu (T.K.), Namakkal District from 7 P.M., to 10.30 P.M., by considering the petitioner's representation dated 10.2.2014. W.P.No.4343 of 2014 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to grant permission to conduct a cultural program scheduled to be held on 23.2.2014 in Pudur Village Sri Mariamman Kovil by considering the petitioner's representation dated 11.2.2014. W.P.No.4384 of 2014 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent authority to give permission to conduct the dance programme at Mookuthipalayam Post, Mallur Village, Salem District for the Mookuthipalayam Poovalamman Koil Thiruvila on 28.2.2014 by the petitioner's representation dated 10.2.2014. W.P.No.4412 of 2014 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to grant permission to conduct a cultural program scheduled to be held on 19.02.2014 near Sri Vinayagar Perumal Temple by considering the petitioner's representation dated 01.02.2014. W.P.No.4446 of 2014 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to grant permission to conduct a cultural program scheduled to be held on 20.02.2014 in Sri Om Kalliammaan Koil festival, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 09.02.2014. W.P.No.4447 of 2014 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to grant permission to conduct a cultural program scheduled to be held on 22.02.2014 in Pudur Mariamman Kovil festival, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 06.02.2014. W.P.No.4454 of 2014 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to grant permission to conduct cultural program in Sri Mariamman festival scheduled to be held on 20.02.2014 at Sri Mari Amman Temple, Mulapalipatti Village, Rasipuram (TK), Namakkal District, from 7 PM to 10.30 PM by considering petitioner's representation dated 11.02.2014. W.P.No.4455 of 2014 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to grant permission to conduct a cultural program in Sri Uma Maheshwarar Temple festival scheduled to be held on 21.02.2014 at Sri Uma Maheshwarar Temple, Vellapatti Village, Vaniambadi (TK), Vellore District, from 7 PM to 10.30 PM by considering petitioner's representation dated 11.02.2014. W.P.No.4458 of 2014 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to grant permission to the cultural dance program on the event of Sri Kali Amman Kovil Thiruvizha festival on 19.2.2014 at 7 PM to 10 PM at Girisamuthiram Village Kovil Ground, Vaniyambadi Taluk, Vellore District. W.P.No.4480 of 2014 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to provide permission to conduct village folk dance and other cultural programs on 18.2.2014 at Theerthampalayam Sri Arulmigu Mariamman Temple existing at Theerthampalayam Village, Namakkal District. W.P.No.4537 of 2014 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to grant permission to the cultural dance programme on the event of Sri Samundeeswari Amman Koil Masi Thiruvizha festival on 19.2.2014 at 7 PM to 10 PM at the village kovil ground at Nachiyakuppam, Periyankuppam Post, Ambur Taluk, Vellore District. W.P.No.4580 of 2014 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to grant permission to conduct a cultural program scheduled to be held on 19.2.2014 near Mariamman Temple by considering the petitioner's representation dated 1.2.2014. W.P.No.4591 of 2014 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.02.2014 and consequently, direct the respondent to give permission to the petitioner to conduct the cultural and dance programs on 21.02.2014 from 7 pm to 10.30 pm at Sri Mariamman and Maduria Veeran Temple, Kandhampalayam Post, Paramathi Vellore District. W.P.No.4593 of 2014 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 08.02.2014 and consequently, direct the respondent to give permission to the petitioner to conduct the cultural and dance programs on 20.02.2014 from 7 pm to 10.30 pm at Sri Mariamman Temple, Perumkurichi Post, Paramathi Vellore District. W.P.No.4611 of 2014 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.02.2014 made to the respondent and consequently direct the respondent to grant permission to the petitioner in order to conduct the cultural and dance programme and to give protection for the said program which is schedule to be held on 27.02.2014 in Shri Mariamman Temple, Gopalanoor, Chinnagoundanur Village, Sankari Taluk, Salem District. W.P.No.4638 of 2014 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 20.01.2014 and give permission to conduct the dance program held on 25.02.2014 at 7 pm to 10.30 pm at Sree Mariyammam Koil, situated at Anandampalayam, Kottaikadu Thotam, Singampettai Post, Bavani Taluk, Erode District. W.P.No.4772 of 2014 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to grant permission and protection to conduct cinema dance programme schedule to be held on 21.02.2014 to 23.02.2014 and 26.02.2014 at Arulmighu Uradi Sri Mariamman Koil and Uradi Sri Kaliamman Koil, Chettysavadi Village, Kannanguruchi post, Salem District. W.P.No.4803 of 2014 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to give permission to conduct the dance programme in the event of Sri Kottai Marriamman Koil Festival on 20.2.2014 at Sanamputhur Village, Kollanali Post, Pasur Via, Erode District. W.P.No.4876 of 2014 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to provide permission to conduct village folk dance and other cultural programs on 24.02.2014 at Mettupudhur Sri Arulmigu Vinayakar Temple existing at Mettupudhur, Erode District. W.P.No.4877 of 2014 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to provide permission to conduct village folk dance and other cultural programs on 27.02.2014 at Pasur Sri Arulmigu Bagavathiamman Temple existing at Pasur, Erode District. W.P.No.4909 of 2014 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to give permission to the petitioner for conducting dance programme to be held on 19.2.2014 at Puthu Mariamman Temple, Pirithi Village, Panner Kunthipalayam Post, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District. W.P.No.4913 of 2014 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to grant permission to the petitioner to conduct a cultural dance program scheduled to be held on 19.2.2014 in Periyapalambakkam Village, Vellore Taluk, Vellore District, based on the petitioner's representation dated 17.2.2014. W.P.No.4919 of 2014 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to give permission to conduct the dance programme (Nattupura Kalai Nigazhchi) in the event of Nethimedu Thanneerpandal Sri Maha Kaliamman Thirukoil Thiruvizha on 24.2.2014 at Nethimedu Thanneerpandal Sri Maha Kaliamman Thirukoil Thiruvizha. W.P.No.4920 of 2014 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to give permission to conduct the dance programme (Nattupura Kalai Nigazhchi) in the event of Nethimedu Thanneerpandal Sri Maha Kaliamman Thirukoil Thiruvizha on 25.2.2014 at Nethimedu Thanneerpandal Sri Maha Kaliamman Thirukoil Thiruvizha. W.P.No.4921 of 2014 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to give permission to conduct the dance programme (Nattupura Kalai Nigazhchi) in the event of Nethimedu Thanneerpandal Sri Maha Kaliamman Thirukoil Thiruvizha on 26.2.2014 at Nethimedu Thanneerpandal Sri Maha Kaliamman Thirukoil Thiruvizha. W.P.No.4922 of 2014 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to give permission to conduct the dance programme (Nattupura Kalai Nigazhchi) in the event of Nethimedu Thanneerpandal Sri Maha Kaliamman Thirukoil Thiruvizha on 27.2.2014 at Nethimedu Thanneerpandal Sri Maha Kaliamman Thirukoil Thiruvizha. W.P.No.4933 of 2014 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to grant permission to conduct cultural program in Sri Angala Parameshwari Temple, scheduled to be held on 27.2.2014, 28.2.2014 and 1.3.2014 at Sri Angala Parameshwari Temple, Pichanoore Village, China Samuthiram Post, Thiruppathur Taluk, Vellore District by considering the petitioner's representation dated 8.2.2014. W.P.No.4948 of 2014 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to grant permission to conduct the cultural and dance program in the event of Sri Mariamman and Sri Maduraiveeran Temples festival on 27.02.2014 at Vellappankoil, Kanagagiri Village and Post, Sankagiri Taluk, Salem District. W.P.No.4949 of 2014 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to grant permission to conduct the cultural and dance program in the event of Shree Batrakali Amman Temple festival on 27.02.2014 at Vellappankoil, Perkattuvalivu, Alachampalayam Village, Idappadi Taluk, Salem District. W.P.No.5157 of 2014 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 herein to grant to the petitioner to conduct the cultural programme on 21.02.2014 between 8 pm to 11 pm at Arulmighu Mariamman Koil, Arundhadiar Street, Karundevampalayam, Kandampalayam Post, P.Velur Taluk, Namakkal District 637 203. W.P.No.5464 of 2014 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 18.02.2014, made by the petitioner to the respondent to grant permission in order to conduct the cultural programme and to give protection which is scheduled to be held on 21.02.2014 at Mariamman Temple, Selathmpatti Village. For Petitioner in WP.No.4204/2014 : Mr.N.Umapathi For Petitioners in WP.Nos.4260 & 4261 /2014 : Mr.V.Ravichandran For Petitioner in WP.No.4264/2014 : Mr.T.Jeevanantham For Petitioner in WP.No.4272/2014 : Mr.P.Lakshmikanthan For Petitioner in WP.No.4273/2014 : Mr.K.T.Sivakumar For Petitioners in WP.Nos.4310 & 4335/2014 : Mr.J.Stalin For Petitioner in WP.No.4343 of 2014 : Mr.R.Marudhachalamurthy For Petitioner in WP.No.4384 of 2014 : Mr.V.Ravichandran For Petitioner in WP.No.4412 of 2014 : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan For Petitioner in WP.Nos.4446 & 4447/2014 : Mr.T.N.Rangesh Kanna For Petitioner in WP.Nos.4454 & 4455/2014 : Mr.J.Stalin For Petitioner in WP.No.4458 of 2014 : Mr.C.S.Vijayakumar For Petitioner in WP.No.4480 of 2014 : Mr.R.Nalliyappan For Petitioner in WP.No.4537 of 2014 : Mr.M.Sathish Kumar For Petitioner in WP.No.4580 of 2014 : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan For Petitioner in WP.Nos.4591 & 4593/2014 : Mr.N.Subramani For Petitioner in WP.No.4611 of 2014 : Mr.N.Vijay Baskar For Petitioner in WP.No.4638 of 2014 : Mr.B.Vasudevan For Petitioner in WP.No.4772 of 2014 : Mr.M.R.Elavarasan For Petitioner in WP.No.4803 of 2014 : Mr.K.T.S.Sivakumar For Petitioner in WP.Nos.4876 & 4877/2014 : Mr.R.Nalliyappan For Petitioner in WP.No.4909 of 2014 : Mrs.R.Hemalatha For Petitioner in WP.No.4913 of 2014 : Mr.M.Rajendran For Petitioners in WP.Nos.4919 to 4922 of 2014 : Mr.T.Shanmugam For Petitioner in WP.No.4933 of 2014 : Mr.E.Kannadasan For Petitioner in WP.Nos.4948 & 4949/2014 : Mr.T.Dhanasekaran For Petitioner in WP.No.5157 of 2014 : Mr.V.Babu For Petitioner in WP.No.5464 of 2014 : Mr.A.Sujatha For Respondents in all WPs : Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan, Spl.G.P. & Mr.P.Sanjay Gandhi, Addl.G.P. C O M M O N O R D E R
The petitioners in all these writ petitions pray for the issue of a Mandamus, to direct the concerned Authorities viz., the respective Inspectors of Police, to grant permission to the petitioners to conduct dance programmes on the occasion of the festival of the local temples.
2. I have heard the respective counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3. The case of the petitioners in all these writ petitions is almost the same. According to the petitioners, the people of the villages, in which the petitioners are residing, had decided to conduct the annual temple festival on different dates during February/March 2014 and that during the said festival, they want to conduct cultural dance programs. The petitioners claim that they sent representations to the Inspectors of Police of the local Police Stations and that since their representations were not considered, they had come up with these writ petitions, seeking a Mandamus to direct the respondents to permit them to conduct cultural dance programs during the festival.
4. Relying upon several orders passed by this Court allowing the writ petitions of identical nature, all the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners pray that similar orders, directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to conduct dance programmes may be passed, subject to any condition that may be imposed. Since there are several orders passed by this court, the learned Special and Additional Government Pleaders also do not oppose these writ petitions very seriously.
5. But unfortunately for the petitioners, the orders relied upon them do not indicate the proposition of law, if any, settled by this court on this issue. It is true that this Court has passed several orders, granting reliefs under identical circumstances. Almost, all those orders of the learned Single Judges of this Court, were passed on the basis of an order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.260 of 2010 dated 18.2.2010. Therefore, it is necessary to have a look at the order dated 18.2.2010 passed by the Division Bench.
6. The order dated 18.2.2010, passed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.260 of 2010, reads as follows:-
"Heard Ms.D.Nisha, learned counsel in support of this appeal. Mr.Raja Kalifulla, learned Government Pleader appears for the respondents.
2. The appellant is aggrieved by the order passed by a learned Single Judge disposing of the petition, which the appellant had filed. The appellant is concerned with the Temple Festival at a Mariamman Temple in Molasi Village of Namakkal District. The appellant was fearing interference by the police on the ground that some of the activities could be objectionable. The appellant had, therefore, filed the writ petition. The learned Single Judge had directed that the appellant's representation be decided on or before 17th February 2010.
3. Inasmuch as the festival is to be held from 23rd February 2010 and since no reply was received, the appellant filed the present appeal.
4. The learned Government Pleader has taken instructions and he has been communicated with a letter, dated 18th February 2010 by the Sub Inspector of Police, Molasi Police Station that the cultural programme will be permitted subject to the condition that obscene dances and double meaning conversations will not be performed. This is apart from the other usual conditions.
5. In view of this communication, no further order is required. We expect the appellant to comply with the conditions. The writ appeal stands disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs."
7. Following the aforesaid order of the Division Bench, N.Paul Vasanthakumar, J., passed an order dated 7.7.2011 in W.P.Nos.16157 and 16158 of 2011, to the following effect:-
"5. Following the above said orders, the second respondent in these writ petitions are directed to grant permission by imposing specific condition that obscene dances and double meaning conversations will not be permitted. It is also made clear that if any condition imposed is violated by performing dance or song in an obscene manner and with double meaning conversations, it is open to the second respondent to proceed against the persons performing the dance/song as well as against the persons responsible for conducting the dance programme in accordance with law."
8. Similarly, S.Rajeswaran, J., passed an order on 20.3.2012 in W.P.No. 7228 of 2012. In a writ petition W.P.No.27560 of 2013, K.K.Sasidharan, J., passed an order on 10.10.2013 to the following effect:-
"2. When the matter came up for admission on 4.10.2013, I directed the learned Government Advocate to take instructions from the police. When the writ petition was taken up today, the learned Additional Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that the police has no objection for giving permission to conduct cultural programme.
3. The learned Additional Government Pleader by placing reliance on the earlier order submitted that permission could be granted to conduct dance programme subject to the conditions contained in the said order.
4. In view of the same, I am inclined to allow the writ petition subject to the following conditions:
(i) The dance programme should be conducted between 7.00 p.m. and 10.30 p.m. only.
(ii) Mikes with horn should not be used in the programme as that would cause disturbance to the students who are undertaking examinations.
(iii) Any dance or song in an obscene manner with double meaning conversations of any kind should never be permitted.
(iv) The programme should be conducted in a peaceful and organised manner without creating or causing any law and order problems.
(v) If there is any difficulty in conducting the dance programme on certain objections being raised, it is for the concerned police officer to take a decision.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would abide by these conditions without fail. His submission is recorded.
6. If there is any violation of any one of the conditions, it is open to the police to take action as per law. The concerned Police Officer is directed to issue permission incorporating the above referred conditions forthwith. No costs."
9. But, a careful look at those orders will reveal that they were passed by this Court in most of the cases, on the basis of a consent given by the concerned Authorities or by the learned Additional Government Pleaders appearing in those cases. Consequently, this Court did not have an occasion, in any one of those cases, either to deal with the question as to whether a Writ of Mandamus would lie in such cases or to deal with the question as to whether the order of the Division Bench constituted a binding precedent on any question of law.
10. In contrast to the orders relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, another learned Judge of this Court considered the legal issues arising in such cases, in great detail in M.Palanisamy vs. The Inspector of Police {CDJ 2012 MHC 1746}. After pointing out that in many cases of this nature, private citizens try to use public places of worship for conducting vulgar and obscene forms of dances, mostly with ill-clad women, leading to public protest, the learned Judge considered the most fundamental question as to whether such persons have a right to seek the issue of the Writ of Mandamus.
11. Citing the decision of the Supreme Court in Director of Settlements vs. M.R.Apparao {2002 (4) SCC 638}, the learned Judge pointed out that the powers of the High Court under Article 226, though discretionary and though without serious limits, must be exercised along the recognised lines and subject to certain self-imposed limitations. For the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, the Court has to first come to the conclusion that the aggrieved person has a legal right, which entitles him to seek its enforcement through a Writ of Mandamus. The existence of a legal right and the infringement of the same by a Public Authority, is a sine non qua for the exercise of the jurisdiction to issue a Writ of Mandamus. As the Supreme Court pointed out, Mandamus is a command issued to a Public Authority to perform a duty imposed by the Statute or by the common law.
12. The petitioners have not cited any enactment that confers a right upon them to hold dance programmes in public places near temples. The petitioners have not cited any Statute, which imposes an obligation or a public duty upon the respondents to permit the petitioners to conduct such programmes in open spaces by erecting shamianas and pandals.
13. In Union of India vs. C.Krishna Reddy {2003 (12) SCC 627}, which was also cited by K.Chandru,J, in his decision in M.Palanisamy, the Supreme Court indicated that the power to issue a Writ of Mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the Officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of such Officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The learned Judge cited the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Uttar Pradesh Rajya Khanj Vikas Nigam {2008 (12) SCC 675}, wherein the Supreme Court reiterated that there must be a subsisting right enforceable in a Court of Law and there must be a corresponding legal duty. Sans any legal right for the petitioners and sans a legal duty for the respondent, I do not know how the petitioners can seek a Mandamus in such cases.
14. Therefore, it is clear that the decision in M.Palanisamy, considered the issue arising in such writ petitions in the proper legal perspective with reference to the parameters on which the prayer for a Writ of Mandamus has to be tested. In most of the writ petitions, the petitioners have not even disclosed who they are. It is not as though the Temple Authorities had made applications before the concerned Authorities for the grant of permission to conduct such programmes. None of the writ petitioners has anything to do with the management and administration of the temples in question. The writ petitioners are private individuals who seek to make use of the temple festivals, certainly not for propitiating the presiding deities of those temples, but for arousing basic instincts of those who assemble under the garb of devotees. The conditions to which the writ petitioners agree to submit themselves to, are as cosmetic as the make-up provided to the artists who are engaged to perform. There is no way the adherence to such conditions could be verified. It is unfortunate that at no point of time any of the respondents ever came up after the conclusion of the festivals, giving a report of what actually happened. But reports do appear in the Press, demonstrating clearly that under cover of Court orders, people who organise such programs get away.
15. India is a signatory to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1979. It entered into force as an International Treaty on September 3, 1981, after its ratification by the 20th country. In the introduction to the Convention, it is pointed out that the general thrust of the Convention aims at enlarging our understanding of the concept of human rights. It says that cultural patterns, which defined the public realm as men's world and the domestic sphere as women's domain, are strongly targeted in all the provisions of the Convention. Article 6 of the Convention mandates States Parties to take appropriate measures including legislation to suppress all forms of trafficking and exploitation of women. A careful look at Article 6 would show that legislation is not the only method required to be adopted by States Parties to curtail the menace of trafficking. Therefore, the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that so long as there is no legal prohibition, the petitioner's fundamental right cannot be curtailed, goes contrary to Article 6 of the Convention.
16. It is well settled that International Instruments, ratified by India, can be looked into and followed by courts, so long as the municipal law is not in conflict with the mandate contained therein. There is no municipal law in India, which is in conflict with the object and purpose of Article 6 of the CEDAW. Therefore, the Convention has a binding force, in view of the law laid down in various decisions. A useful reference can be made to Ms.Githa Hariharan & Anr. Vs. Reserve Bank of India [AIR 1999 (2) SCC 228].
17. The provisions of Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 were also not noted in any of the decisions where mandamus was issued by this court for such programmes. Section 2 of the said Act defines "indecent representation of women" to mean depiction in any manner of the figure of a woman, her form or body or any part thereof in such a way as to have the effect of being indecent or derogatory to or denigrating women or is likely to deprave, corrupt or injure the public morality or morals. It is interesting to note that the definition includes even "a likelihood of depravation or injury to the public morality or morals". Therefore, the contention of all the learned Counsel for the petitioner that even before the grant of a licence, there cannot be a presumption of any illegality, does not hold water. Section 3 of the said Act prohibits even the publication of any advertisement, which contains indecent representation of women in any form. Section 4 prohibits the production, sale and distribution or circulation of any book, pamphlet, etc., which contains indecent representation of women in any form. Therefore, even if there is a likelihood of a person making an indecent representation, the same is prohibited by the said Act. It is needless to point out that the likelihood of depravation, corruption or injury to public morality stands on a different footing than the actual depravation, corruption or injury.
18. While all offences under the Indian Penal Code become offences after commission of an act, one offence, namely an attempt to commit suicide, which when actually committed successfully, cannot be prosecuted. But, the very attempt to commit it is prosecutable. What the petitioners want in these cases is similar to the same and this Court cannot issue a Writ of Mandamus to permit the petitioners to do something when there is a likelihood of violation of the law.
19. Hence, all the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.
28-02-2014 Index : Yes Internet : Yes Svn/RS/kpl V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J Svn/RS/kpl Common Order in WP.No.4204 of 2014 etc. cases 28-02-2014