DURAISELVAM Vs. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE OFFICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCORDING to the Petitioner, in Panankulam Village, there is a temple called Shree Nadiamman Temple. In the said Temple, 'Kumbabishegam' is going to be conducted on 25/10/2014. At that time, the Villagers had proposed to conduct cultural activities, traditional songs and dance on 25/10/2014. It appears that the Villagers had given advance to the famous dance party of the locality. Accordingly, to conduct the said 'Adal Padal programme' on 25/10/2014, the Petitioner had approached the Second Respondent to get permission in regard to the cultural activities on 4/10/2014. But the permission was refused to conduct 'Adal Padal programme' on 25/10/2014. Immediately, another representation dated 11/10/2014 was sent to conduct dance programme on 25/10/2014. However, the Petitioner had not received any positive response.

(2.) PER contra, it is the submission of the Learned Additional Government Pleader that if permission is granted to conduct 'Adal Padal programme' on 25/10/2014 night, then there is a possibility of cropping up of Law & Order problem and this is the real apprehension of the Respondent/Police.

(3.) AT this stage, this Court aptly recalls and recollects Section 2(c) of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986, defines