WP Crl. No. 948 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25-09-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR WP Crl. No. 948 of 2025 S.Imran Bathusha Appellant(s) Vs 1. The Superintendent of Police, Namakkal District, Namakkal 2.The Inspector of Police Namakkal Police Station, Namakkal, Namakkal District. 3.Thoulath Khan Respondent(s) PRAYER To direct the second respondent to grant police protection to conduct santhanakoodu and pookuzhi festival on the upcoming date based on petitioner's representation dated 18.08.2025. For Appellant(s): Mr.P.Elayarajkumar for Mr.R.Krishnan For Respondents: Mr.R.Vinothraja, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1 and R2 Mr.G.Viswanathan, for R3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Crl. No. 948 of 2025 ORDER The petitioner seeks direction to the Police to grant protection to conduct santhanakoodu and pookuzhi festival on the upcoming date based on the petitioner's representation dated 18.08.2025. 2. It is seen that initially, to conduct such procession, there was a dispute between 2 groups in the same religion. RDO conducted enquiry on 03.07.2025, whereas A party/petitioner group and B party had participated. RDO permitted procession and santhanakoodu function, but he specifically not permitted fire walk. Though A party/petitioner's group participated in the meeting, they have not signed the resolution, however challenged the same before the Court in Crl.R.C.No.1270 of 2025. This Court taking note of the fact that the resolution is not signed by A party, held that it is not binding on them. Now, once again the petitioner gave a representation for similar procession. 3. Considering the nature of dispute, this Court is of the view that if the petitioner is willing to follow the directions of the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), it is well open for him to conduct such proceedings as directed by RDO. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Crl. No. 948 of 2025 RDO has passed the said order only after taking note of various objections of other groups and law and order issue. Therefore, the petitioner having participated in the meeting, cannot challenge that order. 4. Be that as it may, if the petitioner is ready to comply with the orders already passed by RDO, with regard to procession as indicated in clause 1 of the order, the respondents shall consider the representation and give necessary protection to the petitioner. It is made clear that the petitioner is not permitted to conduct fire walk as directed by RDO. In that condition, the respondent Police shall grant necessary protection as well as permission. 5. With the above direction, this petition is disposed of. 25-09-2025 pvs Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Crl. No. 948 of 2025 To 1.The Superintendent of Police Namakkal District, Namakkal 2.The Inspector of Police Namakkal Police Station, Namakkal, Namakkal District. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Crl. No. 948 of 2025 N.SATHISH KUMAR J. pvs WP Crl. No. 948 of 2025 25-09-2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis