logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 6057 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Case No : W.P. Crl.(MD). No. 4797 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE P. MURUGAN
Parties : P. Maharasi Versus The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: G. Chandru, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 to R3, D. Rajaboopathy, Government Advocate (Crl. Side). R4, A. Sivasubramanian, Additional Government Pleader.
Date of Judgment : 21-08-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Judgment :-

(Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to grant necessary permission and provide adequate police protection to the event of temple festival of Kodai Vizha and Villupattu programme in Shri. Mutharamman Temple scheduled to be held on 24.08.2026 to 26.08.2026 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 17.08.2026.)

1. Heard both sides.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner made a representation dated 17.08.2026 to the respondent police, seeking permission to conduct a temple festival, and also adequate police protection for the conduct of the temple festival, which is scheduled to be taken place from 24.08.2026 to 26.08.2026.

3. The factual matrix reveals that the petitioner is one of the descendants in the family of one G.P. Periyasamy Nadar and that there is a compromise decree in O.S.No.109 of 2003 dated 28.07.2003, passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Valliyur, wherein the conduct of the Temple Festival was decided by both the parties, and a compromise decree was accordingly passed.

4. This year, the Temple Festival is scheduled to be held on 24.08.2026 onwards for a period of three days. Therefore, the petitioner sought police protection by way of her representation dated 17.08.2026. The said representation was sent by post.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in his fairness, submitted that the representation reached the respondent police only on 18.08.2026. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Inspector of Police on 19.08.2026 seeking permission and police protection. However, the police informed the petitioner that an enquiry by the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) had to be conducted and there was no progress. The very next day, i.e., on 20.08.2026, this writ petition has been filed before this Court.

6. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), appearing for respondents 1 to 3, submitted that the representation received from the petitioner was forwarded to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheranmahadevi, on 19.08.2026 under Section 164 of B.N.S.S., to conduct an enquiry after issuing summons or notices to both rival groups. He submitted that this is the present position of the petitioner's representation. Therefore, he submitted that this Court may pass suitable directions in this regard.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, since the temple festival scheduled to be taken place on 24.08.2026, this Court may direct the Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheranmahadevi, to conduct the RDO enquiry at the earliest, preferably on 22.08.2026, and decide the petitioner's representation.

8. The submission and expectation of the learned counsel for the petitioner are recorded.

9. Since the Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheranmahadevi, is not a party to this petition, in the interest of justice and considering the request made by the learned Additional Government Pleader, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheranmahadevi, is suo motu impleaded as the 4th respondent in this writ petition.

10. In view of the above, this Court directs the Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheranmahadevi, to conduct the enquiry and take a better decision on the petitioner's representation at the earliest.

11. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of.
 
  CDJLawJournal