Madras High Court
K.Balamurugan vs The Superintendent Of Police on 29 July, 2022
W.P.(MD)No.16930 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED :29.07.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.P(MD)No.16930 of 2022
and
W.M.P(MD)No.12331 of 2022
K.Balamurugan ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Ramanathapuram District.
2. The Inspector of Police,,
Thiruppalaikudi Police Station,
R.S. Mangalam Taluk,
Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue
Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the
impugned order so far as denial of conducting of Erudhukattu festival
concerned passed by the 2nd respondent vide his proceedings in
NA. Ka. No. 49 / Ka.Aay / Ka.Ni / 2022 dated 21.07.2022 and quash the same
as illegal and consequently directing the respondents to grant permission to
conduct Erudhukattu festival at about 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. on 10.08.2022 of
Sri Muthumariyamman Temple and Sri Maha Sthaiah Ayyanar Temple, Paranur,
R.S.Mangalam Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.16930 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Saravanan
For Respondents : Mr.S.P.Maharajan,
Special Government Pleader
***
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.)
This writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the second
respondent, dated 21.07.2022, refusing to grant permission and police
protection to the petitioner to conduct “Erudhukattu Festival” in relation to a
temple festival.
2. Heard Mr.K.Saravanan, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.S.P.Maharajan, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.
3. This Court has already held in few cases that permission in relation
to 'Jallikattu', 'Manjuvirattu', 'Vada Maadu', 'Erudhu Vidum Vizha' etc., can be
granted by the District Collector. This Court also observed that permission
cannot be granted only by the District Collector if the event is after the month
of May of any year as the District Collector is not supposed to grant permission
if the event is conducted beyond May of any year.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.16930 of 2022
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner however produced
before this Court a judgment of the Honourable Division Bench of this Court in
W.P(MD)No.14616 of 2017, dated 04.08.2022, in the case of Pala.Karuppaiah
vs. the District Collector and others, wherein it has been held as follows:
“3.It is seen that the “Erudhukkattu” is an ancient
practice and it is celebrated in connection with the temple
festival. This Court can take notice of the fact that
“Erudhukkattu” is not comparable to “Jallikattu”. When
“Jallikattu” is being permitted, there is need to adopt a
different yardstick in the case of “Eruthukattu”. In the case of
“Erudhukkattu”, there is no racing or taming and no cruelty is
being perpetrated on the bull. Therefore, this Court is of the
view that the fourth respondent himself can be directed to
grant permission for holding the said “Edurhukkattu
Festival”. The first respondent has not been designated by
any statute as a competent authority in this case. Only in the
case of “Jallikattu” the District Collector is the competent
authority. “Erudhukkattu” is not Jallikattu, therefore, the
fourth respondent can be directed to grant permission for
conducting the said “Erudhukkattu Festival” on 09.08.2017.”
5. This Court finds that the Honourable Division Bench has not
considered the scope of the specific provisions under the Tamil Nadu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.16930 of 2022
Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009, which was enacted to regulate Jallikattu in
the State of Tamil Nadu.
6. It is to be seen that by the definition as provided under Section 2(1)
(c) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009, the term “Jallikattu”
includes "manjuvirattu", "oormaadu", "vadamadu", "erudhu vidum vizha" and
all such events involving taming of bulls.
7. We are unable to find any difference between "erudhu vidum
vizha" and “ErudhuKattu Vizha” and there is a statutory prohibition to conduct
any festival or programme beyond May of any year.
8. For the reasons stated above, this Court is unable to follow the
decision of the earlier Division Bench of this Court referred to above. This
Court has also earlier by order dated 10.06.2022 dismissed similar writ petition
in W.P(MD)No.11244 of 2022, holding that the authorities cannot be found
fault for rejecting the application if “Jallikattu”, "manjuvirattu", "oormaadu",
"vadamadu", "erudhu vidum vizha" are conducted beyond May of any year in
view of the statutory prohibition and therefore, this writ petition is liable to be
dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.16930 of 2022
9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner however seeks a
specific direction to direct the fourth respondent to permit the petitioner to
perform other function in relation to the temple festival.
10. However, it is seen that the fourth respondent by the impugned
order has already given permission to perform pooja and other religious
ceremonies like Mulaipaari. Permission is also granted to conduct drama on
“Valli Thirumanam”. Therefore, no further direction is necessary and hence,
the request of the petitioner's counsel is rejected.
11. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No Costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[S.S.S.R., J.] [S.S.Y., J.]
29.07.2022
Index : Yes / No
pm
To
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Ramanathapuram District.
2. The Inspector of Police,,
Thiruppalaikudi Police Station,
R.S. Mangalam Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.16930 of 2022
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
and
S.SRIMATHY, J.
pm
W.P(MD)No.16930 of 2022
29.07.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
