High Court · 2025

W.P.No.7845 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated:26.03.2025Coram:THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHYWrit Petition No.7845 of 2025N.Ramesh Babu, M/51 years,Son of Neducheliyan,South Street, Keelakolathur,Thirumanur via,Ariyalur Taluk & District,Tamil Nadu 621 715. .. Petitioner/versus/1.The superintendent of Police,Ariyalur District, Ariyalur.2.The District Collector,Ariyalur District, Ariyalur.3.The Zonal Join Director,Animal Husbandry and Veterinary OfficeAriyalur. .. Respondents 1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.7845 of 2025Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records in proceedings Na.Ka.C2/7872/2024, dated 28.02.2025 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same as arbitrary and without jurisdiction and to consequently, direct the 1st respondent to provide police protection for conducting “Thaipoosa Thrivizha Jallikattu” to be held in the petitioner’s village on 06.03.2025 or any other date. For Petitioner:Mr.V.Raghavachari, Senior Counsel for Mr.N.ElayarajaFor Respondents :Dr.C.E.Pratap, GA(Crl.Side) for R1 Mr.J.Ravindran, AAG Asst.by Mr.S.Senthil Murugan, Spl.G.P for R2 and R3----------O R D E RThis writ petition is filed for issurance of a Wit of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to call for the records in proceedings Na.Ka.C2/7872/2024, dated 28.02.2025 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same as arbitrary and without jurisdiction and to consequently, direct the 1st respondent to provide police protection for conducting “Thaipoosa Thrivizha Jallikattu” to be held in the petitioner’s 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.7845 of 2025village on 06.03.2025 or any other subsequent date.2. The petitioner is seeking permission to conduct Jallikattu. There is no dispute that the petitioner village is also notified village and the Jallikattu is being conducted every year. The dispute is with reference to the site,in which it was conducted. There seems to be an open Thidal along with the village street in which traditionally, the jallikattu was being conducted. The road is also mud road and there is enough open space for the bulls to be brought in, stored and taken away, after the jallikattu is over. However, the authorities on inspection found that instead of conducting the jallikattu in the site, which is abutting the dwelling areas, identified a different site far away from the residence and stated that the permission can be granted to the organizers proposed to conduct Jallikattu in the said area. Accordingly, the impugned order is passed. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3.Mr.V.Ragavachari, the Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.7845 of 2025petitioner would contend that the matter is no longer res integra. Already the very same place was objected to by the respondents authorities and by order dated 24.01.2019 in W.P.No.1794 of 2019, this Court appointed an advocate Commissioner and the commissioner inspected and found that the place is suitable, except for finding out certain deficiencies. Even the said deficiencies are rectified this year. Therefore, when the matter has already been decided by this Court, once again, the respondents are raising the very same issue. However, considering the fact that from the year 2019, the things have changed and these days more number of people and more number of bulls throng the venue, this Court once again appointed an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the site and also to inspect the alternative site that is proposed by the respondents and submit a report. 4. The Advocate Commissioner has filed a report and stated that the site that is proposed by the petitioner is suitable in all respects. He has further found that the site that is proposed by the respondents has a very narrow ingress and egress on the bund of the pond and also a bridge is under construction in that area.4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.7845 of 20255. Be that as it may, Mr.J.Ravindran, learned Additional Advocate General pointing out the counter filed by the second respondent would submit that they have got objections to the commissioner’s report in as much as the Commissioner has not considered the revised guidelines. During the inspection of the year 2019, the old guidelines were in force. Now, the revised guidelines that are framed by the Government vide letter dated 22.12.2023, are in force. As per the same, the event site shall be located as faraway as possible from the human dwellings. This place is amidst the human dwellings and therefore, the authorities are objecting to the site. With reference to the site that is identified by the authorities, even if there is any difficulty with reference to the said site, the petitioner with the authorities can suggest any alternative and a new site can also be identified as per the rules. 6.I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.7845 of 20257. At the outset, the arguments of the learned Additional Advocate General has to be accepted that once the new guidelines are framed by the Government, then the same has to be followed. As per the guideline, the event site should be located far away from the human dwellings. In that background, if the present site is considered, though the Advocate Commissioner’s report clearly demonstrates that already there exists Thidal, facility for vaadi vasal and the roads being the mud roads, which are suitable for the bulls to run etc., it can also be seen that there are human dwellings nearby area. At the same time, the alternative site that is pointed out is also found to be not suitable. Already, the original date, that was prayed for was on 06.03.2025, considering the month of Masi. 8. Therefore, in view of the time constraint, as an exemption, this year alone, pursuant to the Advocate Commissioner's report, Jallikattu can be permitted in the same site with a specific condition that there shall be a barricade in front of all the dwelling houses, so that the dwellings can be 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.7845 of 2025kept safe. Considering the site, there shall also be a upper cap of 500 numbers of bulls and it cannot exceed more than 500. For the next year, the parties shall approach the authorities well in advance, and the authorities shall make a local inspection with the parties and decide the new site far away from the dwellings. 9. In view thereof, the impugned order dated 28.02.2025 shall stand set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of. The Authority shall grant permission by including such other conditions in respect of the same site as proposed by the petitioner and found fit by the Advocate Commissioner as expeditiously as possible. The petitioner proposes to conduct the jallikattu on 14.04.2025 and as such, order shall be passed well in advance to that said date. The petitioner shall also make a representation by intimating the date along with the web copy of the order upon which the order can be passed. It is needless to mention that the police authorities shall give due protection to the event and take care that the guidelines are scrupulously followed and there are no untoward incidents. No costs. 7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.7845 of 202526.03.2025ariNeutral citation:noTo1.The superintendent of Police,Ariyalur District, Ariyalur.2.The District Collector,Ariyalur District, Ariyalur.3.The Zonal Join Director,Animal Husbandry and Veterinary OfficeAriyalur.D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.ari8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.7845 of 2025W.P.No.7845 of 202526.03.20259/9