Judgment :- 1. Heard the party-in-person. 2. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent. This Writ petition is filed by a practicing Advocate stating to serve the public interest. The petitioner has prayed for a Writ of Mandamus, for bearing the respondent or his subordinates doing any act in furtherance of the statement published on 19.4.1996 in various newspapers and not to obstruct the voters in using umbrella at all places including in and around polling stations and may pass such further or other orders as deemed appropriate. 3. When the petition came up yesterday for admission, having regard to the urgency of the matter, I directed the learned Special Government Pleader Sri Raghupathy to take notice for the respondent and to get instructions in this regard. The petitioner contended that the symbol umbrella is allotted to M.D.M.K. party. If the people go to the Polling Station with umbrella, that is being prevented by the respondent as can be seen from the press statement made by the respondent. It is submitted that people carry umbrella to protect from weather conditions that is from the heat of the sun and the wet of the rain, they cannot be prevented from taking umbrellas merely because umbrella symbol is allotted to M.D.M.K. party. There may be hard cases such as mother carrying child in their arms, aged and sickly persons and many more other like persons who have to wait in the long que. If such persons take the umbrellas for their protection from the hot sun and rains if any, there should be no objection on the ground that umbrella symbol is allotted to a particular political party. The statement of the respondent in this regard is untenable and such an action be taken by the respondent. 4. Learned Special Government Pleader on his instruction submitted on the basis of the para wise remarks given by the Respondent in relation to para 5 to 7, which are stated thus: “The allegation raised in the Writ Petition is not correct Regarding the averments in para 5 of the Writ affidavit, I submit that “during the course of the Press meet held on 18.4.1996 one of the members of the reporters sought a clarification from me as to whether any person will be permitted to exhibit any election symbol within the polling station on the date when the poll is held. I responded to this querry by stating that nobody will be permitted to exhibit any notice or sign (other man the official notice) relating to the election within the polling station or for that matter any place which is within 100 meters of such a polling station. The clarification issued by me is based upon the provisions of Section 130 of thee Representation of the People Act 1951. I specifically deny the allegation that no voter will be permitted to come to the polling station with an ‘umbrella’ as appearing in the news item and it was only clarified that no election symbol shall be permitted within 100 meters of polling station in terms of Section 130 of Representation of the People Act, 1951.” The respondent has clarified in what context such a statement was given. He has specifically denied that no voter will be permitted to come to the polling station with an umbrella as appearing in the news item and it was only clarified that no election symbol shall be permitted within 100 meters of polling station in terms of Section 130 of the Representation of the People Act 1951. It is obvious that within 100 meters of the polling station, as per the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, parties cannot be permitted to canvass or use the symbols relating to the section within the polling station or any place which is within 100 meters of such a polling station on the date of the poll. This is what the respondent states in his clarification statement. When he specifically denies that no voter will be permitted to come to the polling station with umbrella the grievance of the petitioner does not survive. For, it is made dear that so long as the people take umbrella for the purpose of protecting from the weather conditions, there shall not be any objection. But the same umbrella should not be used for the purpose of canvassing in favour of a particular political party within the area above mentioned. Obviously, such actions will be prevented and it is open to the concerned officers to take necessary action. In view of what is stated, the Writ petition has to be disposed and accordingly it is disposed of. 5. In view of the order passed in the main W.P., W.M.P. No. 8746 of 1996 is dismissed.