Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K. MUNIASAMYTHEVAR versus THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K. Muniasamythevar v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police - W.A. Nos.119 of 2006 [2007] RD-TN 870 (9 March 2007)

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Dated: 09/03/2007

Coram:

The Honourable Mr. Justice DHARMA RAO ELIPE

and

The Honourable Mr. Justice P.P.S. JANARTHANA RAJA W.A. Nos.119 of 2006

W.A. No.237 of 2006

and

W.P. Nos.4818, 5717, 7079, 10868, 11282, 11478 of 2006 W.P. Nos.63, 187 and 203 of 2007

W.A. No.119 of 2006:

K. Muniasamythevar .... Appellant vs

1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police

Keelakkarai

Ramanathapuram District

2. The Inspector of Police

Sayalkudi Police Station

Kadaladi Taluk

Ramanathapuram District .... Respondents Appeal under Cl.15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 29-3-2006 passed in W.P. (MD) No.2966 of 2006.

For Appellant :: M/s. L. Shaji Chellan, Petitioners S. Srinivasa Raghavan, Srimathy, G.R. Swaminathan, S.Manokar, N.Ananthapadmanaban, M.Saravanakumar, Mr.SamuelJames, G. Prabhu Rajadurai, V. Nagendran, V. Bharathidasan

For Respondents:: Mr. R. Janakiramulu,

Respondents Spl. Govt. Pleader

Mr. Sivakumar

:COMMON JUDGMENT



DHARMA RAO ELIPE, J.

The writ appeals are directed against the order dated 29-3-2006, passed by the learned Judge disposing of the writ petition filed by the appellant herein.

2. Aggrieved by the interference by the respondents Police with the conduct of the sport-events such as "Rekla Race", the petitioner has made a representation seeking permission for conduct of the "Rekla Race" in his village and since no order was passed on the representation, he filed the above writ petition, as Public Interest Litigatin, seeking the relief of Writ of Mandamus forbearing the official respondents concerned from interfering with the conduct of "Manjuvirattu", "Jallikattu", Bullock Cart Race (Rekla Race) in connection with village festivals.

3. The learned Judge, by the order dated 29-3-2006, held that the writ- petitioner was not entitled to the relief sought for and further directed the State and the authorities concerned to take immediate steps to ban all types of village sport-events such as "Jallikattu", "Rekla Race" (Bullock Cart Race), "Oxen Race" or any other entertainment involving causing cruelty to animals in the State of Tamil Nadu and further directed the authorities concerned to strictly comply with the order and the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The correctness of the order passed by the learned Judge in imposing a complete ban on the conduct of the said sport-events is questioned by the petitioners in these writ appeals.

4. During the pendency of the writ appeals, several writ petitions came to be filed as Public Interest Litigation by the villagers concerned seeking permission for the conduct of the above said sport-events during the village Temple festivals scheduled in the month of January/February, 2007. According to the petitioners, in the light of the order passed by the learned Judge, the respondent Police and the District administration have denied permission for the conduct of the said sport-events. The petitioners, therefore, sought for Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from interfering with the conduct of the said sport-events. In some writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for appropriate directions to the respondents concerned to provide adequate security to the petitioners concerned to facilitate the conduct of the sport-events.

5. Since the issue involved in the writ-appeals and the subsequent writ petitions is one and the same, they were tagged together for hearing. Arguments addressed were more or the less common in all the writ petitions and the writ appeals. The writ appeals and the writ petitions are, therefore disposed of by this common order.

6. We will first take up the challenge to the order dated 29-3-2006 passed by the learned Judge.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners submitted that the Rekla Race, Manjuvirattu, Jallikattu etc. are regular annual sport-events taking place in the State of Tamil Nadu and more particularly in the southern Districts of the State at the end of the harvest season (January/February) and during village temple festivals. Appellants/Petitioners claim that the said sport-events are traditional and closely associated with the village life-style. Such sport- events exhibits the talent, valour and bravery of the village youths. Like any other sport-events, the events in question do involve certain degree of risk to the participants wherein the strength of animals are put to test. Appellants/petitioners further claim that the animals taking part in the above said sport-events are identified, specially trained and selected solely for the purpose of the said sport-events and that the owners of the animals spend considerable amount of money for the purchase and maintenance of the animals. It was also claimed that since the said sport-events attract a large number of foreign tourists and the local people, the conduct of such events promote the tourism industry and thus augment foreign exchange to the country. Further, the participation in the events is open to all village-youths, it also promotes religious harmony among the villagers.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/petitioners, therefore, argued that the learned Judge was not correct in imposing a blanket ban on the conduct of such sport-events. By issuing such a direction, the learned Judge went beyond the scope of the writ petitions. The learned Judge seems to be swayed by the presumption and assumption that the animals would be tortured and would be subjected cruelty either before or during the sport-events. Admittedly, there is no legislation or rules and regulations framed by the competent authority governing the conduct of the said sport-events. By imposing such a ban, the learned Judge has introduced a legislation on the subject, which is impermissible.

9. In so far as the alleged cruelty to the animals in such sport-events is concerned, learned counsel submitted that either before or during the event, the animals are not subjected to any violence or cruelty. The cruelty may occur in the course of the events and there is no presumption that there will be cruelty to the animals in the course of each and every such sport-events. Learned counsel submitted that the Act does not contain any provision which makes it obligatory upon the State to take preventive action in cases where there is likelihood of any cruelty to the animals and that the said sport-events by themselves will not construe an offence under the Act unless they are accompanied by "actual cruelty" to the animals and such cruelty cannot be presumed merely because the sport-events are arranged. Learned counsel further submitted that under the guise of preventing cruelty to the animals, it may not be proper for the State to impose a complete ban on the conduct of such sport- events. Merely because there were stray complaints/incidents of cruelty to the animals and injuries to the participants/spectarors, there may not be a complete ban on the conduct of the games.

10. As regards the stampede and injury to the spectators, learned counsel submitted that the Government may framed rules and regulations for the safety of the spectators by providing distance factor, raising of baricades, etc. Learned counsel submitted that it is always open to the authorities concerned to take appropriate action under Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to the Animals Act against the individual persons for causing violence or cruelty to the animals and that a total ban on the conduct of the traditional sport-events, which are peculiar to the State of Tamil Nadu, is illegal and unjustifiable.

11. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/ petitioners, therefore, argued that the learned Judge was not correct in imposing a blanket ban on the conduct of such sport-events. By issuing such a direction, the learned Judge went beyond the scope of the writ petitions. The learned Judge seems to be swayed by the presumption and assumption that the animals would be tortured and would be subjected cruelty either before or during the sport-events. When there is no specific legislation framed by the competent authority governing the conduct of the said sport-events, by imposing the complete ban, the learned Judge has introduced a legislation on the subject, which is impermissible.

12. Mr. P.N. Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the Animal Welfare Board, which has been impleaded as a party respondent to these writ petitions, submitted that in the above said traditional sport events, the animals viz. the Bulls are subjected to cruelty by whipping, beating, twisting the tails, etc., which is punishable under Section 11(1) of the Prevention of Curelty to Animals Act, 1960. Further, in such sports-events, which is not regulated by any rules and regulations by the competent authorities, not only the animals are subjected to cruelty, but even the participants and the spectators are exposed to the risk of injury and death. There were several incidents in the past wherein the spectators have been trampled by the sampeding animals. According to the learned counsel, as per Sec.11 of the Act, conducting of the sport-events like "Jallikattu", "Manjuvirattu", "Rekla Race", etc. are illegal and that it is the duty of the State to ensure that the provisions of theAct are duly complied with and that no person is allowed to commit an offence of cruelty in any form to animals. Learned counsel submitted that it is evident from the Preamble of the Act that the Act has been brought into force basically to prevent infliction of unnecessary pain and suffering on animals, as well as cruelty of every kind to the animals. It is incumbent upon the State to see that the provisions of the Act are not breached. concerned in ais to be strictly implemented in letter and spirit, no such traditional sport events could be permitted.

13. Mr. Ramasamy, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State submitted that that the above said sport-events are traditional and are being conducted in the State of Tamil Nadu, more particularly in the southern Districts of the State, from time immemorial. The said sport-events are part and parcel of festival season of the State of Tamil Nadu, which attracts not the only the local people but also a large number of foreign tourists. Not only the Hindus, but also persons belonging to other religious faiths take part in such sport-events which indirectly promote religious harmony in the State. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that all possible steps would be taken by the District Administration and the Police to ensure that no violence or cruelty is caused to any animal taking part in the ensuing sport-events. It was further submitted that the District Administration and the Police would also ensure that necessary security arrangements are made in the sporting-arena for the safety of the spectators and the general public and that adequate medical facilities are made available near the sporting-arenas for the immediate treatment of the injured persons. Learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that by providing adquate safety and security and also the medical facility, the rate of casualty/injured can be reduced to the maximum extent. Learned Additional Advocate General finally submitted that appropriate orders may be passed by this Court by taking into consideration the religious, cultural rights and the age-old custom prevailing in the State of Tamil Nadu giving due respect to the feeling, sentiment and religious practice of the people of Tamil Nadu.

14. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Several articles/photo-clippings appered in the dailes on the subject were also placed before us. We have perused the order passed by the learned Judge in the writ petitions.

15. The sum and substance of the claim of the appellants/writ petitioners is that the said sport-events are traditional events taking place in the villages of the Tamil Nadu since time immemorial and are considered to be part and parcel of the Tamil culture and religion and, therefore, under the guise of "violence/cruelty" to the animals, the conduct of such traditional sport-events should not be interfered with by the State. On the other hand, it is the claim of the "animal-lovers"/Animal Welfare Board that in such sport-events, the animals are subjected to violence and cruelty, which is a cognizable offence under the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, and further such sport-events involve high element of risk to the lives of the participants and the spectators, the conduct of such sport-events should be banned.

16.In the light of the rival contentions raised before the learned Judge and even before us, the core issue of the whole matter was only with reference to the "treatment of the animals" during the said sport-events and whether such treatment would amount to "cruelty" within the meaning of Section 11 of the said Act.

17. The sport-events, viz. "Jallikattu", "Manjuvirattu", "Rekla Race", etc. are peculiar to the southern districts of the State of Tamil Nadu and such events take place in the villages during harvest season, more particularly in the months of January and February, and during village temple festivals. Of all the sport-events qestioned in these matters, the main focus is on the "Jallikattu". We need not go into the history and the peculiar features of the said sport-events suffice to indicate that in such sport-events the strength of the animals, viz. Bulls and Oxen is tested. Basically, it is "taming" of the well-nourished and specially trained bull by a group of youths.

18. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 was enacted with the object to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on animals. The term "animal" is defined to mean any living creature other than a human being. The Government of India appointed a Committee to investigate and suggest measures for the prevention of cruelty to animals. The Act declares certain type of cruelty to animals to be offences and provides for penalties for such offences including imprisonment. The Act also provides for the establishment of an Animal Welfare Board with the object of promoting measures for animal welfare. A Committee has also been constituted under the Act to control the experimentation on animals and, on the advice of the Animal Welfare Board, to permit such experimentation, if it is necessary to do so. The Act also provides for grant of licence for regulating the training and performance of animals for the purpose of any entertainment to which public are admitted through sale of tickets.

19. Chapter III of the Act deals with "cruelty" to animals generally. Section 11 catalogues various acts such as beating, kicking, overriding, overdriving, overloading, tourturing, administration of injurious drugs or injurious substance, causing unnecessary pain and suffering while conveying, carrying or transporting, keeping or confining in a cage having isufficient space, chaining for an unreasonably long time, providing insufficient food and water, etc. as general form of cruelty to animals and also prescribes punishment for committing such acts. The section provides that if any person treats animals with cruelty he shall be punished for the first offence with fine upto fifty rupees and for the second or subsequent offence committed within three years of the previous offence, with fine upto one thousand rupees or with imprisonment upto three months, or with both. The offence is treated as "cognizable" one. Under subsection (3) of Section 11, the dehorning of cattle, the castrationor branding or nose-roping of any animal in the prescribed manner, the destruction of stray dogs in lethal chambers, the extermination or destruction of any animal under the authority of any law for the time being in force, the destruction or the preparation for destruction of any animal, without inflicting unnecessary pain or suffering, as food for mankind are excluded from the definition of "cruelty" under Section 11(1).

20. Chapter IV deals with experimentation on animals. The perfromance of experiments on animals for the purpose of advancement by new discovery of physiological knowledge or of knowledge which will be useful for saving or for prolonging life or alleviating suffering or for combating any disease, whether of humanbeings, animals or plants is not prohibited and is lawful. This chapter further provides for the constitution of a Comittee by the Central Government, on the advice of the Animal Welfare Board, for the purpose of controling and supervising the experiments on animals. The duties and powers of the Committee to make rules relating to experimentation on animals are provided under Sections 17 to 19. Penalty for contravention of the rules framed or for breach of the conditions imposed by the Committee is provided under Section 20. (The experimentation on animals under Section 14 is, therefore, an exception to Section 11 of the Act.)

21. Chapter V of the Act deals with "Performing Animals". Under Section 22, subject to certain restrictions, the training of the animals for the purpose of performance and exhibition of the performance of such trained animals before the general public are permitted. The terms "exhibit" is defined to mean exhibit at any entertainment, to which the public are admitted through sale of tickets and the terms "train" is defined to mean train for the purpose of any such exhibition. In short, this chapter deals with the training of the animals for performing certain acts and exhibition of the performance of such trained animals to the general public, which is popularly called "Circus Show". Sections 22 to 25 provide for the restriction on exhibition and training of performing animals, procedure for registration, power of the court to prohibit or restrict exhibition and training of performing animals and the power to enter premises. Section 26 provides for the offences. Under Section 27, the training of animals for bona fide military or police purposes or the exhibition of any animals so trained, or any animals kept in any zoological garden or by any society or associations for the object of exhibiting the animals for educational or scientific purposes are exempted from the purview of the Act.

22. Under Section 28, the killing of any animal in a manner required by the religion of any community is not an offence under the Act. In other words, the killing of the animals such as goat, hen, cock, etc. in the name of religious offerings is not attrached by the penal provisions of the Act.

23. Section 36 prescribes the limitation period of three months from the date of the commission of the offence for instituting prosecution for commission of the offences under Sections 11 and 12. Section 37 provides for delegation of power exercisable under the Act by the Central Government to the State Government. Section 38 deals with the rule-making power of the Central Government.

24. It was argued that the acts of whipping, beating, twisting of the tail, jumping on the hump, pulling the hind legs, etc. by the participants during "Jallikattu", "Rekla-race" etc. would amount to "treating the animals cruelly" in terms of Section 11 of the Act, the conduct of such sport-events should be banned. On the other hand it was claimed by the appellants/petitioners that the animals taking part in "Jallikattu", "Rekla- race", "Manju-virattu" are specifically identified, specially trained and well- nourished solely for the purpose of the said sport-events and that the owners thereof spend considerable money on the maintenance of such animals. In other words, the specifically spotted animals are specially "trained" for certain "performance" for "exhibition" of the performance. It is pertinent to note here, as was claimed by the appellants/petitioners, that these trained bulls are exclusively used for the performance of such sport-events and are not used for any other domestic purposes, such as ploughing, cart-pulling, etc. It is more or the less the exhibition of the performance of a trained bull by its owner before the villagers. The exhibition of performance of trained animals is permitted under Chapter V of the Act, of course, subject to certain restrictions mentioned therein. "Training" and "Exhibition" of the performance of a trained animal without registration as contemplated under Section 22 is an offence under Section 26 of the Act, for which the person who trains or exhibits such animal is liable to be convicted and punished with the fine of Rs.500/- and/or imprisonment for three months. Therefore, even if the allegations of cruelty/violence to the bulls during the course of the events such as "Jallikattu", "Rekla-race", "Manjuvirattu" etc. are covered by the Section 11(1) of the Act, under the scheme of the Act, the consequence, as provided in the Act, would be the prosecution of the persons causing violence/cruelty to the bulls.

25. There can be no second opinion of the fact that the said sport-events are part and parcel of the Tamil village culture and are closely wedded to the life-style of the villagers. The imgination or visualisation of the harvest season of villages in the State of Tamil Nadu would be imcomplete without "Jallikattu", "Manjuvirattu", "Rekla-race", etc. When our traditional and cultural life-style of India, more particularly the life-style of the villagers, is being rabbidly effaced by the influence of the Western culture, it is imperative that our village traditional and cultural events are preserved and maintained. It is also an admitted fact that since such sport-events attract large gathering of foreign tourists and local people, they have received the open patronage of the State. At the same time, we are also not unmindful of the fact that the conduct of such sport-events results in a large number of fatalities and injuries. We are shocked at a glance of the statistics produced before us, reflecting the alarming rate of death/injury of the participants and the spectators in such sport-events. Equally, the allegations of cruelty to animals in such sport-events also cannot be brushed aside as without substance. There are overwhelming materials placed before us showing the violent and cruel treatment of the animals in such sport-events.

26. The mainstay of the argument of the animal-lovers/respondent concerned for banning the conduct of the sport-events in question is that the animals are subjected to violent/cruel treatment during such sport-events, which is squarely covered by Section 11(1) of the Act. The fact, however, remains is that for violation of the provisions of Section 11(1), the consequence under the Act is criminal prosecution of the persons causing violence/cruelty to the bulls and punishing them with fine and/or imprisonment. There is no provision in the Act, as it stands today, for imposing a total ban on the coduct of the said sport- events on the ground that the animals are subjected to cruel/violent treatment during such sport-events. Further more, the "trained animal" (bull) exibiting its "performance" before the spectators, in our opinion, can be categorised as "performing animals" under Section 21 of Chapter V of the Act. As such, when once the Act, which is a regulatory one, permits the exibition of the performance of the trained animals, subject to certain restrictions, the conduct of the sport-events in question can also be regulated instead of banning the same.

27. We have already stated that these sport-events received the open patronage of the State since they attract a large gathering of foreign tourists and thus promote the tourism industry of the State. The effort so far by the State has been to promote such sport-events in the international tourism calender, but nothing has been done to regulate the sport-events to prevent cruelty to the animals and to check the casualty and the injury rate during the sport-events. Mr. Ramasamy, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State argued vehemently that imposing a complete ban on the conduct of "Jallikattu", "Manjuvirattu", Rekla-race", etc. merely on the grounds of violence/cruelty to the animals taking part in the said sport-events and the risk to the lives of the particpants and the spectators may not be proper. Learned Additional Advocate General categorically stated that the State would take all possible steps to ensure that the animals are not subjected to any kind of violence/cruelty by any one either before or during the course of the said sport-events. The State would also take necessary steps to ensure the safety of the participants and the spectators by earmarking sporting arena, erecting baricades, keeping away the spectators for a particular distance from the sporting arena, etc. and that adequate medical facilities, both for the animals and the participants/spectators, would be made available near the sporting- arena. In short, it was argued by the learned Additional Advocate General that instead of imposing a complete ban on the conduct of such games, necessary directions may be issued by this Court for regulating the conduct of the sport- events, which the State would follow scrupulously. In this context, we deem it necessary to quote the relevant averments made in the counter-affidavit filed by the State in these matters, which read as follows: "It is submitted further that strict vigil will be maintained by the State Police as well as the District Administration to ensure prevention of cruelty to animals and the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 will be strictly maintained and any violation will be strictly dealt with." "... that the Court may consider the petitioner's case and pass appropriate order since it involves hurting the sentiments of large section of District (sic) who are addicted to Jallikattu in one form or another with a stern instruction to the authorities to strictly follow the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. ... ... ... If the Hon'ble Court considers it expedient to accept the petitioners' case, all possible steps will be taken to prevent cruelty to the animals in the proposed Jallikattu. ... All efforts will be taken by the District Administration and Police to reduce such risk and also ensuring prevention of cruelty to the participating bulls in the Jallikattu event."

"... The rate of casualty could be controlled, minimised by taking sufficient care. However, all efforts will be taken by the District Administration and Police to reduce such risk and also ensuring prevention of cruelty to the participating bulls in the Jallikattu event. As in the case of Rome and Spain where such events are being in 'arenas', if the Hon'ble Court deems it fit, such arenas can also be fixed in the near future for the conduct of Jallikattu festival so that the casualty and losses should be reduced and the viewing spectators could be provided adequate safety and security." (para 11 of the counter filed by the District Administration in W.P. NO.63 of 2007). In view of the averments made in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State/District Administration and the arguments addressed by the learned Additional Advocate General, the State appears to be interested in the continuance of the conduct of the said sport-events rather than imposing a complete ban on them.

28. Considering the overall aspect of the matter in the light of the rival arguments advanced before us and on a careful analysis of the matter on the backdrop of the scheme of the Act, we are of the considered view that the imposition of complete ban on the conduct of village sport-events such as "Jallikattu", "Manjuvirattu", "Rekla-race" on the predominant ground of breach of Section 11(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, as was directed by the learned Judge in the impugned order, is not correct. At the same time, even at the cost of repetition we reiterate that we are not rejecting the allegation/complaint of cruelty to the animals in such sport-events as without substance. In such matters where the interests of the "villagers" and the "animal-lovers" are pitted against each other, we are of the view that every endeavour should be made by all concerned to strike a proper balance safeguarding the interests of every one, including the animals. In our opinion, such balance could be struck by regulating the conduct of the said sport-events by appropriate legislation by the State and strict implementation thereof by the District Administration and the Police.

29. As far as the violence/cruelty to the animals is concerned, the Prevention of Cruelty to the Animals Act provides for prosecution of the offenders. Further, the State may introduce regulatory measures such as registration of the trained animals (bulls), medical examination of the bulls by the qualified vetenary doctors before the commencement of the events to confirm that the animals are not intoxicated or administered with steroids or subjected to any cruel treatment of application of chilli-power, mud, etc. on their genetial parts, etc. to make it more aggressive and ferocious; prescribing the ground area for the conduct of the event; prescribing the animal-man ratio such as five to seven five youths per bull; providing adequate medical facilities near the sporting arena for treatment of the injured animals; prescribing the duration for the performance of each bull; etc. As far as the risk to the lives of the participants is concerned, we were informed that while the number of instantaneous casualty due to goring is negligible, the casualty rate has swollen only due to want of immediate proper medical attention after the injury. This can be reduced to a great extent by ensuring adequate medical facilities near the sporting arena for the immediate medical treatment of the injured persons. lack of adequate medical facilities near the sporting the mortality rate safety measures such as capping the sharpened horns of the bull with enclosures such as wodden caps, etc. The safety of the can be ensured by prescribing the distance norms between the sporting-arena and the spectators gallery, erection of wodden barricades of sufficient height to prevent the bulls rampaging into the crowd, etc. We were also informed that these sport-events do frequently take place in the villages through out the year under the guise of village Temple-festival. The sport-events, in our opinion, should be permitted to be conducted only during the harvest season, i.e. during January and February and should not be permitted to be conducted as part of the village Temple festival as per the convenience of the villagers. The above are only illustrative. It is for the State, in consultation with the Animal Welfare Board and the other organisations such as Blue Cross, Soceity for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA), etc., to come out with appropriate legislation, prescribing comprehensive norms ensuring the safety of the animals, participants and the spectators, for regulating the conduct of the said sport-events.

30. In W.P. No.11478 of 2006 filed by one Nagarajan, who lost his son in the Jallikattu, seeking the relief of banning the Alanganallur Jallikattu scheduled to be held on 17-01-2007, by order dated 9-1-2007, the State was directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the death of his son in Jallikattu. Mr. Janakiramulu, learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the compensation amount would be paid to the petitioner. The learned Additional Advocate General also endorsed the statement made by the learned Special Government Pleader. We are informed that the order has not been complied with till date. Four weeks' time is granted for compliance of the direction.

31. For the reasons stated above, we set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Judge directing the State Government to impose a complete ban on the conduct of the above said sport-events. The writ appeals are allowed. The other connected writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated. Connected miscellaeous petitions are closed. To

1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police

Keelakkarai

Ramanathapuram District

2. The Inspector of Police

Sayalkudi Police Station

Kadaladi Taluk

Ramanathapuram District


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.