Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

D.ASOKAN versus THE TAHSILDAR

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


D.Asokan v. The Tahsildar - Crl.O.P.(MD).No.588 of 2007 [2007] RD-TN 291 (24 January 2007)

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 24/01/2007

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.588 of 2007

D.Asokan,

Secretary,

Puliampatti Maninakaram,

Uravinmurai Pa/A-5/2003,

Aruppukkottai,

Virudhunagar District. ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Tahsildar,

Aruppukkottai,

Virudhunagar District.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Aruppukkottai,

Virudhunagar District.

3.The Inspector of Police,

Town Police Station,

Aruppukkottai,

Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents Prayer

Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to issue a suitable direction directing the respondents to take steps to keep the temple open and to celebrate the festival and to provide the police protection for the festival to be held from 30.01.2007 to 07.02.2007.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Natarajan

For Respondents : Mr.M.Ravishankar

Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)

:ORDER



This petition is filed by the petitioner to issue suitable direction directing the respondents to take steps to keep the temple open and to celebrate the festival and to provide the police protection for the festival to be held from 30.01.2007 to 07.02.2007.

2. Heard Mr.S.Natarajan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Ravishankar, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side).

3. The facts giving rise to the filing of this petition as stood exposited from the averments, would run thus:

(i) The petitioner, D.Asokan, is the Secretary of Puliampatti Maninakaram Uravinmurai. There is a temple called Sri Pathirakaliyamman Kovil at Veerapathran Street, Maninakaram, Aruppukottai, which belongs to the petitioner Uravinmurai. Every year, the petitioner Uravinmurai is under the custom of conducting the festival called Pongal Vaibhava Vizha in the month of 'Thai'. Last year also, such a festival was conducted after obtaining police protection as per the order of this Court dated 01.02.2006 in Crl.O.P.No.892 of 2006. (ii) One group of people headed by K.Ramamoorthy were not co-operative and creating problem. Last year also such group attempted to put a spoke in the wheel in conducting the celebration, which resulted in obtaining a direction from this Court. There was an attempt to compromise the matter before the Tahsildar. Even thereafter, the said group headed by K.Ramamoorthy was not amenable for such compromise and ultimately, the petitioner as a Secretary of the said Uravinmurai was directed to conduct the festival. It so happened that the key was taken by K.Ramamoorthy and upon the complaint, the Tahsildar and the Police intervened and the door was opened and the festival was conducted and all general public also participated. After the function was over, again it was locked up and the key had gone back to the Village Administrative Officer. The petitioner in writing claimed that he is entitled to the key. (iii) However, without further intimation, the Village Administrative Officer handed over the key to the other group. The petitioner is making arrangement to conduct the similar festival between 30.01.2007 and 07.02.2007. The key is still with the other group. The petitioner gave a representation through Speed Post to the Tahsildar and the Inspector of Police, Aruppukkottai to take appropriate steps. No steps have been taken by the respondent Nos.1 to 3.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) has taken notice on behalf of the respondents.

5. The mere narration of facts would show that there are two groups, one headed by the petitioner and another headed by the said K.Ramamoorthy, between them over which there are controvercies as to who should manage the temple, etc. When the question is raised as to why the said K.Ramamoorthy claims to have been received the key of the temple from the Village Administrative Officer, has not been added as one of the parties herein in this petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would convincingly reply that he has not prayed any order to be passed as against the said K.Ramamoorthy, but he prays the Court to pass order to the effect that the police might give protection during the time of conduct of festival.

6. Hence, considering the innocuous prayer, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to see that there is no law and order problem at the time of the festival being conducted there at the place referred to in the petition.

7. With the above direction, this petition is closed. rsb

To

1. The Tahsildar, Aruppukkottai,

Virudhunagar District.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Aruppukkottai,

Virudhunagar District.

3. The Inspector of Police,

Town Police Station,

Aruppukkottai,

Virudhunagar District.

4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court,

Madurai.




Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.