LAWS(MAD)-2015-4-59

S. SENKUTTUVAN Vs. THE STATE AND ORS.

Decided On April 08, 2015
S. Senkuttuvan Appellant
V/S
The State And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) THE petitioner claims that he is the District President of Dravidar Viduthalai Kazhakum in Kancheepuram District and his Association has been functioning for the past several years to eradicate the communalism and bring the social harmony to the society. He and other affiliated members of the said association, work for the welfare of the society and rendering their services to oppressed and depressed the people in the society. The petitioner would further state that the association is working for annihilation of caste and to curtail superstitious practices which are misused to exploit the people or cause them financial or physical harm and it is not targeting the religion and their concern is only with regard to the misuse of faith to victimize the innocents. It is further stated by the petitioner that the petitioner's organisation has planned to hold a campaign, by conducting a public meeting for the purpose of eradicating the caste and communalism on 30.03.2015 at Tambaram. In this regard, they have submitted an application on 01.04.2015 to the second respondent, and it was rejected vide impugned order dated 05.04.2015, stating that on earlier occasion i.e., on 22.03.2015, in Om Sakthi Amman Temple, Mahabalipuram, the association while conducting a meeting had spoken something against some section of the people belonging to a particular religion as well as their God.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend, the sole object of the petitioner's association, is for annihilation of caste and to curtail superstitious practices which are misused to exploit the people and thereby cause them financial or physical harm and they are not targeting any religion and their concern is with regard to the misuse of faith and victimize the innocents. They want to conduct the public meeting and in this regard, their application has been rejected by the second respondent.