High CourtsDIVISION BENCH(2017) 01 MAD CK 0082

K.Chellasamy vs The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, & Ors.

Madras High Court · Decided on 31 January 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
A.Selvam, P.Kalaiyarasan
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
1502 of 2017

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

13 paragraphs · 273 words
1.

This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records relating to the impugned order dated

29.01.2017 passed by the third respondent and quash the same, by way of issuing a writ of certiorarified mandamus.

2.

It is averred in the petition that the petitioner is a resident of Mavadikkal Village, Kadayanallur Taluk, Tirunelveli District. Further it is averred in

the petition that the petitioner has given a representation to the respondents for getting necessary permission to conduct Cini Musical Orchestra

Program in the place mentioned in the petition. But the third respondent without assigning any reason has rejected the same, by way of passing the

impugned order dated 29.01.2017 and in order to quash the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

3.

Mr.M.Govindan, learned Special Government Pleader, has taken notice for the respondents.

4.

It is seen from the records that the petitioner has given a proper representation to all the respondents. But the third respondent even without

assigning proper reason, has simply rejected the representation by way of passing the impugned order dated 29.01.2017.

5.

Considering the fact that necessary permission has been sought for only to conduct Cini Musical Orchestra Program and also considering that

the third respondent without assigning any reason has rejected the same, this Court is inclined to pass the following order.

6.

In fine, this writ petition is allowed without costs and the impugned order dated 29.01.2017 passed by the third respondent is quashed and the

third respondent is strictly directed to consider the representation and dispose of the same as early as possible.