1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06.04.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P.(MD).No.4002 of 2011 R.Kandavel ... Petitioner Vs 1.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 India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the third respondent to grant police permission and protection to the petitioner for conducting the Annual Chitra Pournami Festival scheduled on 16.04.2011 to 18.04.2011 of 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 **** ORDER The petitioner had earlier filed a Writ Petition in Writ Petition in W.P(MD).No.5698 of 2010 seeking for a Mandamus to conduct the festival. At that time, this Court, by an order dated 26.04.2010, has passed the following order:- “3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the police protection could be provided to the petitioner for celebrating the festival in the name of Balamurugan Temple. However, he submitted that liberty may be given to him to approach the authorities or a Competent Civil Court to have the name or retain the name as "Sri Mangala Nayagai Kannagi Devi Koil". 4. Considering the above said facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondents, I am inclined to pass the following order:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 ●Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to give police protection to the petitioner, if he conducts celebration in the name of Balamurugan Temple, as stated in the counter affidavit of the second respondent. ●Such permission could be granted to the petitioner by imposing certain reasonable conditions. ●The petitioner is at liberty to approach the Civil Court or any other authority to have or retain the name of the petitioner temple as Sri "Mangala Nayagai Kannagi Devi Koil". ●Till the petitioner gets relief from the Civil Court or from the proper authority, he shall not conduct the festival in the name of Sri "Mangala Nayagi Kannagi Devi Koil". 2. It is made clear in the previous Writ Petition that till the petitioner gets relief from the Civil Court or from the proper authority, he shall not conduct the festival in the name of “Sri Mangala Nayagi Kannagi Devi Koil”. But, curiously, to circumvent this order, he claims by way of the present Writ Petition that he created a new Trust after the orders of this Court under the very same name of “Sri Mangala Nayagi Kannagi Devi Koil" and seeks a direction to the third respondent to grant police permission and protection for conducting the “Annual Chitra Pournami Festival” scheduled on 16.04.2011 to 18.04.2011. This is nothing but an abuse process of law and to circumvent the earlier order of this Court. This Writ Petition is filed under the innocuous prayer of Mandamus on the ground that he has created a new Trust on his own. He has not even chosen to send a representation and straight away has come up with the present Writ Petition. 3. Be that as it may. Useful reference can be made from a Division 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 a party. In the said judgment, we have culled out when Mandamus is to be given and on what occasions the innocuous prayer to consider and pass orders on representations leads to drastic consequences. What could not be entertained by the officer concerned, he is being made to consider by virtue of an order of this Court, which under law cannot be allowed. Unfortunately, in spite of the ruling passed, this kind of frivolous petitions are being filed in huge numbers, time and again. The Supreme Court in the case of A.P.SRTC Vs. G.Srinivas Reddy, reported in (2006) 3 SCC 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 the direction "to consider" issued by court. We may illustrate by an example. A claim, which is stale, time- barred or untenable, is put forth in the form of a representation. On the ground that the authority has not disposed of the representation within a reason- able time, the person making the representation approaches the High 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 court directing him to "consider" the grant of relief. Instances are also not wanting where authorities, unfamiliar with the process https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 and 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 and consequently granting reliefs which otherwise could not have been granted. Thus, action of the authorities granting undeserving re- lief, in pursuance of orders to "consider", may be on account of ignorance, or on account of bona fide belief that they should grant relief in view of the court's direction to "consider" the claim, or on account of collusion/connivance between the person making the representation and the authority deciding it. Represen- tations of daily-wagers seeking regularisation/absorption into regular service is a species of cases, where there has been a large-scale misuse of the orders "to consider". 4. Following the Apex Court's judgment cited supra, a Division Bench of 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 is that we should be aware of the consequences of our order when we direct the authorities to "consider". In the aforesaid situation, if the learned Judge, before directing the authorities to consider, had heard the petitioner herein, then the order of the Division Bench reprimanding the 5th respondent would have been brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. Some time, we also come across cases where our directions is to an authority who cannot really pass an effective order and the effective order can only be passed by an authority superior to the one to whom we issue directions. Obviously, when the order is not complied with, since it cannot be complied with because of the hierarchy discipline, the officer has to face the contempt. All these can be avoided if we only bear in mind the guidelines given in the above case by the Supreme Court before we direct the respondent to "consider and pass orders". In view of the above, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (P&A) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S) To 1.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.12891 W.P.(MD).Nos.4002 of 2011 06.04.2011 ssm/RJ/28.4.11/(3p/5c) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/