R.Kandavel v. The Superintendent of Police, Theni District

1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 06.04.2011CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P.(MD).No.4002 of 2011R.Kandavel... Petitioner Vs1.The Superintendent of Police, Theni District.2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Uthamapalayam, Theni District.3.The Inspector of Police, Koodalur Police Station, Kumuli, Theni District....Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiafor the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the third respondent togrant police permission and protection to the petitioner for conductingthe Annual Chitra Pournami Festival scheduled on 16.04.2011 to 18.04.2011of Sri.Mangala Nayaki Kannagi Koil, Mangalamadanthai, Vengaikanal,Chenkottai, Paliyankudi, Koodalur, Theni District. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Kannan For Respondents : Mr.K.Balasubramanian Addl.Govt.Pleader **** ORDERThe petitioner had earlier filed a Writ Petition in WritPetition in W.P(MD).No.5698 of 2010 seeking for a Mandamus to conduct thefestival. At that time, this Court, by an order dated 26.04.2010, haspassed the following order:-“3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submittedthat the police protection could be provided to thepetitioner for celebrating the festival in the name ofBalamurugan Temple. However, he submitted that liberty maybe given to him to approach the authorities or a CompetentCivil Court to have the name or retain the name as "SriMangala Nayagai Kannagi Devi Koil". 4. Considering the above said facts and circumstances ofthe case and considering the submission made by the learnedcounsel appearing for the petitioner as well as therespondents, I am inclined to pass the following order:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2●Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to give police protectionto the petitioner, if he conducts celebration in the name ofBalamurugan Temple, as stated in the counter affidavit ofthe second respondent.●Such permission could be granted to the petitioner byimposing certain reasonable conditions.●The petitioner is at liberty to approach the Civil Court orany other authority to have or retain the name of thepetitioner temple as Sri "Mangala Nayagai Kannagi DeviKoil".●Till the petitioner gets relief from the Civil Court or fromthe proper authority, he shall not conduct the festival inthe name of Sri "Mangala Nayagi Kannagi Devi Koil".2.It is made clear in the previous Writ Petition that tillthe petitioner gets relief from the Civil Court or from the properauthority, he shall not conduct the festival in the name of “Sri MangalaNayagi Kannagi Devi Koil”. But, curiously, to circumvent this order, heclaims by way of the present Writ Petition that he created a new Trustafter the orders of this Court under the very same name of “Sri MangalaNayagi Kannagi Devi Koil" and seeks a direction to the third respondentto grant police permission and protection for conducting the “AnnualChitra Pournami Festival” scheduled on 16.04.2011 to 18.04.2011. This isnothing but an abuse process of law and to circumvent the earlier orderof this Court. This Writ Petition is filed under the innocuous prayer ofMandamus on the ground that he has created a new Trust on his own. He hasnot even chosen to send a representation and straight away has come upwith the present Writ Petition. 3.Be that as it may. Useful reference can be made from aDivision Bench decision of this Court in M.Ingaci Vs. The Commissioner,Devakottai & Others, reported in 2010-2-L.W.785, to which I was also aparty. In the said judgment, we have culled out when Mandamus is to begiven and on what occasions the innocuous prayer to consider and passorders on representations leads to drastic consequences. What could notbe entertained by the officer concerned, he is being made to consider byvirtue of an order of this Court, which under law cannot be allowed.Unfortunately, in spite of the ruling passed, this kind of frivolouspetitions are being filed in huge numbers, time and again. The SupremeCourt in the case of A.P.SRTC Vs. G.Srinivas Reddy, reported in (2006) 3SCC 674 = 2006-3-L.W.170, had observed as follows:-“19. There are also several instances where unscrupulous petition-ers with the connivance of "pliable" authorities have misused thedirection "to consider" issued by court. We may illustrate by anexample. A claim, which is stale, time- barred or untenable, isput forth in the form of a representation. On the ground that theauthority has not disposed of the representation within a reason-able time, the person making the representation approaches theHigh Court with an innocuous prayer to direct the authority to"consider" and dispose of the representation. When the court dis-poses of the petition with a direction to "consider", the authori-ty grants the relief, taking shelter under the order of the courtdirecting him to "consider" the grant of relief. Instances arealso not wanting where authorities, unfamiliar with the process https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3and practice relating to writ proceedings and the nuances of judi-cial review, have interpreted or understood the order "to consid-er" as directing grant of relief sought in the representation andconsequently granting reliefs which otherwise could not have beengranted. Thus, action of the authorities granting undeserving re-lief, in pursuance of orders to "consider", may be on account ofignorance, or on account of bona fide belief that they shouldgrant relief in view of the court's direction to "consider" theclaim, or on account of collusion/connivance between the personmaking the representation and the authority deciding it. Represen-tations of daily-wagers seeking regularisation/absorption intoregular service is a species of cases, where there has been alarge-scale misuse of the orders "to consider".4. Following the Apex Court's judgment cited supra, a Division Benchof this Court, in M.Ingaci Vs. The Commissioner, Devakottai & Others,reported in 2010-2-L.W.785, had in para 8 observed:-“...8. Why we are extracting this judgment in such detail isthat we should be aware of the consequences of our order when wedirect the authorities to "consider". In the aforesaid situation,if the learned Judge, before directing the authorities toconsider, had heard the petitioner herein, then the order of theDivision Bench reprimanding the 5th respondent would have beenbrought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. Some time, wealso come across cases where our directions is to an authoritywho cannot really pass an effective order and the effective ordercan only be passed by an authority superior to the one to whom weissue directions. Obviously, when the order is not complied with,since it cannot be complied with because of the hierarchydiscipline, the officer has to face the contempt. All these canbe avoided if we only bear in mind the guidelines given in theabove case by the Supreme Court before we direct the respondentto "consider and pass orders".In view of the above, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. Nocosts.Sd/-Assistant Registrar (P&A)/True Copy/Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S)To1.The Superintendent of Police, Theni District.2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Uthamapalayam, Theni District.3.The Inspector of Police, Koodalur Police Station, Kumuli, Theni District.+ 1 cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR No.12891W.P.(MD).Nos.4002 of 201106.04.2011ssm/RJ/28.4.11/(3p/5c)