WP CRL.(MD)/5051/2026 of Karthick Vs The Revenue Divisional Offic on 11 September 2026

1. The Revenue Divisional Officer/The Sub Collector, Tenkasi Revenue Division, Tenkasi District.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi District.

3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi District.

4. The Inspector of Police, Puliyarai Police Station, Tenkasi District. ... Respondents

PRAYER :- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's Form-I application dated 01.09.2026 and grant permission for conducting the Vinayagar Chathurthi Festival at Arulmigu Sri Selva Vinayagar Temple, Lala Kudiyiruppu, Pudur, Tenkasi District, and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 to provide necessary police protection for conducting the festival and taking the Vinayagar idol in procession on 15.09.2026 through the proposed route, in accordance with law, and pass such further or other orders as this Court. For Petitioner : Mr. S.Srikanth

For Respondents : Mr. A.Sivasubramanian Additional Government Pleader for R1. Mr. D. Rajaboopathy

Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for R2 to R4. WP.CRL.(MD). No.5203 of 2026:- Karthick ... Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Revenue Divisional Officer/The Sub Collector, Tenkasi Revenue Division, Tenkasi District.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi District.

3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi District.

4. The Inspector of Police, Puliyarai, Police Station, Tenkasi District.

5. The District Officer, Fire and Rescue Services Department, Tenkasi.

6. The Assistant Engineer, Rural Electricity Distribution, Sengottai, Tenkasi District.

... Respondents PRAYER :- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the 4th respondent in Na.Ka.No.08/ g[spaiu fh/ep /2026 dated 28.08.2026 and quash the same, and consequently direct the 4th respondent to issue NOC to the petitioner for conducting the Vinayagar Chathurthi procession on 15.09.2026 through the proposed route, subject to such reasonable conditions as may be imposed.

For Petitioner : Mr. S.Srikanth

For Respondents : Mr.A.Sivasubramanian

Additional Government Pleader

for R 1, R5 & R6.

Mr.C.Susikumar

Government Advocate(Crl. Side)

for R2 to R4.

C O M M O N O R D E R Since the petitioner has filed these two Writ Petitions in respect of the same issue in order to conduct Vinayagar Chathurthi Festival, both the Writ Petitions are taken up together for disposal by this common order.

2. The Writ Petition in W.P.Crl.(MD)No.5051 of 2026 has been filed seeking a direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's Form-I application dated 01.09.2026 and grant permission for conducting the Vinayagar Chathurthi Festival at Arulmigu Sri Selva Vinayagar Temple, Lala Kudiyiruppu, Pudur, Tenkasi District, and consequently to direct the respondents 2 to 4 to provide necessary police protection for conducting the festival and taking the Vinayagar idol in procession on 15.09.2026 through the proposed route, in accordance with law.

3. The second writ petition WP.CRL.(MD). No.5203 of 2026 has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the 4th respondent in Na.Ka.No.08/ g[spaiu fh/ep /2026 dated 28.08.2026 and quash the same, and consequently direct the 4th respondent to issue NOC to the petitioner for conducting the Vinayagar Chathurthi procession on 15.09.2026 through the proposed route, subject to such reasonable conditions as may be imposed.

4. The first writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the first respondent, namely, Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), to consider the petitioner's Form-I application dated 01.09.2026 and grant permission for conducting the Vinayagar Chathurthi Festival. The second writ petition has been filed challenging the rejection order passed by the fourth respondent in Na.Ka.No.08/ g[spaiu fh/ep /2026, dated 28.08.2026, and consequently, seeking a direction to the fourth respondent to issue NOC to the petitioner for conducting Vinayagar Chathurthi procession on 15.09.2026.

5. The records reveal that the petitioner had already approached this Court by filing WP.Crl.(MD)No.4755 of 2026, seeking permission and police protection to conduct the Vinayagar Chathurthi Festival. This Court, by order dated 11.09.2026, taking note of G.O.Ms.No.598 Public (Law & Order – B) Department, dated 09.08.2018, disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the petitioner to follow the said Government Order to file Form-I before the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), seeking permission. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted Form-I application before the first respondent by enclosing NOC obtained from the land owners, Electricity Board Department and Fire Rescue Operation Department. However, he could not produce the NOC from the local police.

6. In this regard, the petitioner had submitted earlier representation dated 25.08.2026, which is under challenge in WP.Crl.(MD)No.5203 of 2026. The said representation seeking permission to conduct the Vinayagar Chathurthi festival was rejected and there is no specific finding, decision or opinion with regard to the NOC. As per the aforesaid Government Order, the fourth respondent, namely, the Inspector of Police has no power to consider the Form-I application. Therefore, the rejection of the petitioner's Form-I application to grant permission to conduct the Vinayagar Chathurthi festival is non-est in the eye of law. While both the writ petitions are pending, in a hurry burry manner, on the night of 10.09.2026, the first respondent rejected the Form-I application on the ground that the fourth respondent had rejected the NOC, which is not correct. The earlier order dated 28.08.2026 passed by the fourth respondent, which is under challenge in WP.Crl.(MD)No. 5203 of 2026, did not mention any reason for rejection of the NOC. Therefore, the rejection of the Form-I application is not correct as per the factual aspects.

7. The learned Government Advocate as well as the Additional Government Pleader are not in a position to place before this Court either the NOC rejection order passed by the fourth respondent or the reports submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi Division, dated 08.09.2026. Thereafter, the learned Government Advocate obtained further instructions from Mr.Ramar, Inspector of Police, who was present before this Court to give instructions to the learned Government Advocate.

8. The learned Government Advocate, on instruction from Mr.Ramar, Inspector of Police, submitted that the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, dated 08.09.2026 is not available in the file produced by the Inspector of Police, Mr.Ramar. The learned Additional Government Pleader also submitted that, though it is referred in the rejection order of the RDO that the Inspector of Police had rejected the NOC, but there is no such document available at this stage.

9. Taking note of the factual scenario and Zig-zag missing of documents relating to the factual aspects focused by the Government Officials, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the first respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) is premature, since there is no NOC issued by the Inspector of Police as of now.

10. During the course of the submission, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the petitioner proposes to conduct the Vinayagar Chathurthi Festival at South Street, Lala Kudiyiruppu, Pudur, Tenkasi District and that there is a rival party residing in the Northern Street of Lala Kudiyiruppu. If the petitioner is allowed to proceed with the Vinayagar Chathurthi procession etc., there is a possibility of law and order problem where in the year 2023, the petitioner or his associates have attempted to conduct the Vinayagar Chathurthi festival and there was a hue and cry. At that time, when the police attempted to resolve the issue, the petitioner's group assaulted a Constable, namely, Ganeshmurugan, resulted in registration of a case in Crime No.122 of 2023 with a major offence of 307 of IPC as per the charge sheet laid and that person is facing the trial.

11. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner intervened and submitted that the case is not under Section 307 of IPC and it was only a petty case, in which, the petitioner pleaded guilty and paid fine. The police is not in a position to say before this Court, whether the Crime No.122 of 2023 is a Sessions or a petty offence is recorded.

12. Now the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and his associates would not enter into the North Street for taking the Vinayagar Idol, procession or immersion etc., and that the petitioner is ready to file an undertaking affidavit before the Inspector of Police, Puliyarai Police Station as well as the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned, who is going to once again decide the formal representation, if this Court set aside both.

13. In such view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 10.09.2026, in reference No.RDOTKS/1841/2026-A1, is liable to be set aside, wherein the

order has been passed prematurely, particularly when there is no NOC, issued by the Inspector of Police, Puliyarai Police Station, Tenkasi District. The Inspector of Police, Puliyarai Police Station Mr.Ramar is present when this Court directed the learned Government Advocate to obtain further instruction as to whether the Inspector of Police is going to issue NOC or not.

14. The learned Government Advocate on instruction from the Inspector of Police Mr.Ramar, submitted that if the petitioner would not enter into the North Street and give such an undertaking immediately the Inspector of Police, who is present before this Court, would issue NOC and thereafter the Revenue Divisional Officer shall consider the Form-I application and take a final call in this regard. Then the learned Additional Government Pleader also submitted that, if the NOC is issued by the Inspector of Police and submitted by the Petitioner, the Revenue Divisional Officer will consider the same along with the other three NOCs submitted by the petitioner.

15. Considering all these aspects in both these writ petitions, the impugned orders are set aside and both the writ petitions are disposed of and the connected miscellaneous petition is closed with the following directions: i) The petitioner is directed to submit an undertaking affidavit, stating that he would not touch or enter through the North Street while taking the Vinayagar Idol in procession, immersion etc. ii) By immediate submission of an undertaking affidavit by the Petitioner, the Inspector of Police, Puliyarai Police Station, Tenkasi District is directed to issue the NOC for the Vinayagar Chathurthi festival installation, procession and immersion by tomorrow [12.09.2026] itself. iii) Once the Inspector of Police issues NOC, the petitioner is directed to place the NOC before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenkasi Division immediately. The Revenue Divisional Officer is directed to consider the petitioner's Form-I application, wherein so far the petitioner completed 75% of the NOC and remaining 25% NOC is to be completed very soon and then issue Form-II

permission to proceed with the Vinayagar Chathurthi festival installation, procession and immersion etc. iv) The petitioner should not make any law and order issue and should strictly abide by the Vinayagar Chathurthi festival Procession in a proper manner. If any untoward incidents being caused by the petitioner or his associates, it is left open to the police to initiate any criminal action against the petitioner or his associates in accordance with law. v) Since the Inspector of Police, Puliyarai Police Station, Mr.G.Ramar is present before this Court, knows the orders and directions of this Court and he should not take any technical view that no order copy is produced to issue NOC. vi) As far as the Revenue Divisional Officer is concerned, the Additional Government Pleader of this Court is requested to inform the order of this Court to the Revenue Divisional Officer, who shall reconsider the Form-I application and issue the permission, if the petitioner gets the NOC from the police, and the order should be passed at the earliest, which enable the petitioner to proceed further.

16. For reporting compliance, list the matter on 16.09.2026.

11.09.2026 Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No psa To

1. The Revenue Divisional Officer/The Sub Collector, Tenkasi Revenue Division, Tenkasi District.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi District.

3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi District.

4. The Inspector of Police, Puliyarai Police Station, Tenkasi District.

5. The District Officer, Fire and Rescue Services Department, Tenkasi.

6. The Assistant Engineer, Rural Electricity Distribution, Sengottai, Tenkasi District.

7. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai

DR. P. MURUGAN, J. psa

WP.CRL.(MD). Nos.5051 & 5203 of 2026 & WPMP.CRL.(MD). No. 1190 of 2026

11.09.2026