Madras High Court
K.Vellaisamy vs The Superintendent Of Police on 12 April, 2018
Author: D.Krishnakumar
Bench: D.Krishnakumar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 12.04.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.(MD)No.7911 of 2018
K.Vellaisamy ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Madurai District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Saptoor Police Station,
Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District. ...
Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents
herein to grant permission and give police protection to conduct the ?Adalum
Padalum? dance program at about 07.00 p.m on 24.04.2018 in pursuance to the
festival of ?Arulmigu Sri Kaliyamman-Mariamman Thirukovil?, situated in
Anaikaraipatti, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District on considering the
petitioner's representation dated 06.04.2018.
!For Petitioner : Mr.S.Karthick Subramanian
For Respondents : Mr.P.Kannithevan,
Additional Government Pleader.
:ORDER
The petitioner has made a representation to the respondents on 06.04.2018, seeking permission and give police protection to conduct the ?Adalum Padalum? dance program at about 07.00 p.m on 24.04.2018 in pursuance to the festival of ?Arulmigu Sri Kaliyamman-Mariamman Thirukovil?, situated in Anaikaraipatti, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District.
2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that this Court, by the order dated 24.07.2017, in WP(MD)No.13517 of 2017, passed an order, directing the respondent therein to consider the representation of the petitioner, subject to certain conditions and any other reasonable restrictions that may be imposed by the respondent in the interest of public and to preserve the law and order. The conditions imposed in the said order read as follows:
(a) the "Adal Padal" programme in connection with a festival should be completed before 10.30 p.m.
(b) double meaning songs should not be played so as to spoil the minds of students and the youth;
(c) no songs, touching upon any political party or religion, community or caste be played;
(d) no flex boards in support of any political party or religious leader be erected;
(e) the function should not affect either religious or communal harmony and shall be conducted without any discrimination based on caste;
(f) 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;
(g) similarly, the Police is empowered to stop the programme, if it exceeds beyond the permitted time;
(h) the participants of the programme shall not intake any kind of in- toxic substance or liquor during the programme; and
(i) if any untoward incident takes place, the organizers of the programme be made responsible for the same.
4.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that in the light of the aforesaid order passed by this Court in WP(MD)No.13517 of 2017 dated 24.07.2017 and also in the light of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2001 1 L.W. (Crl.) 233 [Church of God (Full Gospel) in India Vs. K.K.R.Majestic Colony Welfare Association and others], appropriate orders will be passed on the representation of the petitioner.
5.The relevant portion of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Church of God (Full gospel) in India Vs. K.K.R.Majestic Colony Welfare Association and others, reported in 2001 1 L.W. (Crl.) 233 reads as follows:
?.... Further, it is to be stated that because of urbanization or industrialization, the noise pollution may in some area of a city / town might be exceeding permissible limits prescribed under the rules, but that would not be a ground for permitting others to increase the same by beating of drums or by use of voice amplifiers, loudspeakers or by such other musical instruments and, therefore, rules prescribing reasonable restrictions including the rules for the use of loudspeakers and voice amplifiers framed under the Madras Town Nuisance Act, 1889, and also the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 are required to be enforced. We would mention that even though the Rules are unambiguous, there is lack of awareness among the citizens as well as the Implementation Authorities about the Rules or its duty to implement the same. Noise pollution activities which rampant and yet for one reason or the other, the aforesaid Rules or the rules framed under various State Police Acts are not enforced. Hence, the High Court has rightly directed implementation of the same. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. ?
6.In an earlier occasion, this Court, by an order dated 02.04.2018, disposed of the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.7043 of 2018, by imposing conditions to consider the application submitted by the petitioner. Now, it is brought to the notice of this Court that two groups are individually seeking permission to conduct cultural programme, for the very same festival. Therefore, this Court is inclined to impose further condition that the application shall be submitted only by the trustees of the Temple or the committee of the Vizha Kuluvinar or the organizers of the festival committee before the concerned respondent police. Therefore, the petitioner being an individual person has to submit a fresh application before the second respondent. If any fresh application is submitted, the same shall be considered on merits and in accordance with law, by taking into consideration of the conditions imposed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.7043 of 2018 dated 02.04.2018.
7.In addition to the above conditions imposed in WP(MD)No.13517 of 2017, in the event of permission is granted by the respondents, the petitioner has to give undertaking or assurance before the authority concerned that there will not be any obscenity or vulgarity in the cultural programme and there will not be any disturbance to the public peace and tranquillity. Further, the second respondent / Inspector of Police, Saptoor Police Station, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District is directed to videograph the entire cultural programme, at the cost of the petitioner and submit the CD to the Superintendent of Police, Madurai. If any violation of the above said condition by any of the parties, the respondents are at liberty to take appropriate criminal action against the organiser and the concerned persons in accordance with law.
8.With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
To
1.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District.
2.The Inspector of Police, Saptoor Police Station, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District.
.