Facts
The petitioner sought permission to conduct a double bullock-cart (Rekla) race on 14 October 2026 on Cumbum Mettu Road, in connection with the Arulmigu Sri Mandhaiyamman Temple festival.
Source reference: pp. 1–2After the fourth respondent rejected his representation, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking to quash that order and obtain permission and police protection.
Source reference: pp. 1–2The petitioner relied on earlier High Court orders permitting Rekla races; the State raised concerns about public inconvenience and traffic disruption.
Source reference: p. 3Issues
Whether the fourth respondent’s rejection of permission to conduct the Rekla race should be quashed
Source reference: pp. 1–2Whether the petitioner could be permitted to conduct the race, subject to safeguards and verification that the proposed route was feasible
Source reference: pp. 3–7Law Applied
The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and followed the directions of the Division Bench in W.P. (MD) No. 21022 of 2024 concerning the conduct of bullock-cart races.
Source reference: pp. 1, 3–4It also set out conditions, including obtaining departmental no-objection certificates, veterinary inspection, prohibitions on cruelty and intoxication, safety measures, route and timing controls, and advance notice to the authorities.
Source reference: pp. 4–6The order further reproduced conditions attributed to the Supreme Court in Transfer Petition (C) No. 68 of 2013, including separate tracks, veterinary supervision, video recording, and advance notice to the district administration and police.
Source reference: pp. 5–6The Court referred to penal action under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, in the event of cruelty.
Source reference: p. 5Reasoning
The petitioner’s willingness to comply with conditions, considered alongside the safeguards laid down in the cited Division Bench directions, justified setting aside the rejection and permitting the event conditionally.
Source reference: p. 3The Court addressed the State’s public-inconvenience and traffic concerns by requiring the fourth respondent to assess the proposed route; if it was not feasible, the respondents were to provide an alternative route.
Source reference: pp. 3, 6–7Holding
The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order dated 23 September 2026 was quashed.
The respondents were directed to permit the Rekla race subject to the stated conditions and to verify the proposed route’s feasibility, providing an alternative if necessary.
Source reference: pp. 3–7No costs were ordered.
Source reference: p. 7Original Court PDF
A.KrishnanvsThe District Collector,
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
