Judgment : BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J. (1) The writ-petitioners have come up with a supplementary affidavit alleging violation of the directions given by this Court in the above Public Interest Litigation on September 28, 2007 on the occasion of the meeting held at the instance of the Democratic Youth Federation of India (hereinafter referred to as DYFI) on December 20, 2008 by cooking of foods for the public gathered in the meeting with the aid of open oven within 3 kilometres of the Victoria Memorial Hall. The annexure to the said affidavit, i.e. the various news-items from the local newspapers indicated that there was also the allegations of parking vehicles used for carrying the participants within the prohibitive zones as indicated in the said order. (2) On September 28, 2007, this Court passed various directions for the protection of the Victoria Memorial Hall and among those directions, the following two directions are relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present application : 1) "Prohibition of parking of all cars on those red-marked portions as indicated in the annexed map should be immediately imposed and such prohibition should continue for 24 hours a day including the holidays. Relaxation to this prohibition of parking may be given only to the high foreign dignitaries or on special ceremonial occasions." 2) "All the hotels and the restaurants situated within three kilometres from the VMH are directed to use cleaner fuels, such as L.P.G, as suggested by the NEERI and the police authority is directed to see that within the distance of three kilometres from the VMH, there is no open oven on the pavements. Burning of leaves having already been prohibited, no fresh direction is necessary." (3) Subsequently, on May 7, 2008, this Court passed the following direction regarding grant of permission to hold any meeting or rally within three kilometres of the Victoria Memorial Hall: "In such circumstances, we direct the Commissioner of Police, Kolkata, not to grant any permission to hold any meeting or rally within three kilometres of the Victoria Memorial Hall in future unless an undertaking in advance is given by the organisers of such meeting or rally not to violate any of the terms of the order dated September 28, 2007 along with the application for permission for holding the same. If in spite of giving such undertaking as a precondition for permission, the same is not respected, the Commissioner of Police will not grant any permission in future to hold any further meeting or rally at the instance of such organisers within three kilometres of the Victoria Memorial Hall. Apart from taking such undertaking in advance, the Police Authority will also take adequate measures for preventing the breach of our abovementioned order in future and in case of contravention of any such undertaking, will take appropriate action against the person or persons concerned in accordance with law." (4) In support of the allegation that during the course of the meeting held on December 20, 2008, there was rampant violation of the restrictions imposed by this Court, as indicated above, the petitioners have mainly relied upon the news-report given in the local newspapers published on the date following the meeting as well as the various photographs published in those newspapers. Those news-reports and the photographs indicated cooking on the Brigade Parade Ground and in the surrounding areas and the parking of huge numbers of vehicles alleged to have carried the persons who gathered in the meeting. In view of such allegations, this Court called for reports from the Police and the Army Authorities on those allegations. Subsequently, we also called for explanation from the DYFI regarding those allegations. All those authorities have submitted their versions on the allegations of the petitioners. (5) The Joint Commissioner of Police (A), in his affidavit, has, at the outset, admitted that the Police Authority was quite conscious of the earlier orders passed by this Court imposing restrictions about the use of oven and parking of the vehicles in the restricted zones. He has further stated that "prior undertaking" of the organiser in terms of the earlier orders for holding meeting was taken and necessary instructions were issued to the officers on duty to see that the orders passed by this Court were in no way violated. According to the Police Authority, on the date of the meeting there was a gathering of about one lakh fifty thousand persons and taking advantage of such huge gathering, some hawkers and the persons attached to the catering business sold cooked food-articles in the Brigade Parade Ground. The police immediately arrested five persons named in the affidavit and seized five gas cylinders and five gas ovens. The police immediately arrested five persons named in the affidavit and seized five gas cylinders and five gas ovens. Those persons were booked under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code. It has further been asserted in the affidavit that open ovens were dismantled "as and when noticed". The Joint Commissioner of Police has further stated that in future the police would be "more vigilant" so that there is no violation of the order passed by this Court. (6) From the abovementioned affidavit, we find that according to the Police, none of the organisers violated the order of this Court but some hawkers and persons connected with catering business tried to sell cooked food but they, just five in number, were arrested with five gas cylinders and five gas ovens. Although it is claimed that open ovens were dismantled "as and when noticed" but number of such dismantled oven was not disclosed and no person was arrested for using such open oven. In the affidavit, there is, however, no mention about illegal parking of any vehicle within the restricted zones though such allegations are reflected from the annexure to the affidavit. (7) In the report given by the Army Authority, it is specifically mentioned that the preparation of the rally commenced on December 17, 2008 and a large number of participants/party workers had congregated by December 19, 2008. According to the report, temporary camps were established near Babu Ghat and Mohan Bagan Ground and use of open ovens was resorted to by the DYFI in and around Maidan within three kilometres from the Victoria Memorial Hall in direct contravention of the order passed by this Court. It is further stated that the DYFI had indulged in parking of vehicles on the greens of the Maidan in violation of the order of this Court, as a result, the local military authority had also taken up a case vide HQ Bengal Area letter No. 001947/BP/Grnd/Q3 dated December 26, 2008 recommending that the permission to hold rally to the DYFI in future should be denied. In the said letter, annexed to the report, it is stated that on 19th and 20th December, 2008, large scale of cooking using open ovens/cookers was resorted to by the DYFI. In the said letter, annexed to the report, it is stated that on 19th and 20th December, 2008, large scale of cooking using open ovens/cookers was resorted to by the DYFI. (8) The defence of the DYFI, on the other hand, contained in two different sets of affidavit may be summed up thus : a) The DYFI was quite aware of the restriction imposed by this Court as mentioned above and it applied for holding the meeting on December 20, 2008 after giving due undertaking of complying with the restrictions. b) It is true that the DYFI erected temporary camps near Babu Ghat or Mohan Bagan Ground but those were erected not for accommodating the participants of the meeting. In fact, those camps were fixed for overseeing arrangements on the date of meeting so that there was no violation of the order passed by this Court. The DYFI repeatedly warned the public to comply with the directions contained in the order passed by this Court and also gave advertisement to that effect in the newspapers. c) The photographs relied upon by the writ-petitioners or the Army Authority should not be relied upon as nobody has by affidavit taken responsibility of the veracity of those photographs. Even those photographs did not indicate whether those were really taken on the date of meeting or that the alleged cooking or parking of the vehicles had taken place at the restricted place. At any rate, those pieces of photographs without examining the photographer are not admissible incidence. d) Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that those photographs were genuine ones, those did not prove that the persons violating the order of this Court were really connected with the DYFI. (9) After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the aforesaid materials on record, we find that the Army Authority has admitted the violation of the order of the Court regarding use of the open oven and parking within the restricted area. It appears from the affidavit of the Joint Commissioner of Police, that five cases against five different persons have been initiated under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code but no step has been taken against the errant drivers of the vehicles who parked their vehicles at the prohibitive zones. It appears from the affidavit of the Joint Commissioner of Police, that five cases against five different persons have been initiated under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code but no step has been taken against the errant drivers of the vehicles who parked their vehicles at the prohibitive zones. No explanation has been given in the affidavit filed by the Joint Commissioner of Police regarding the step taken against the drivers of the vehicles who illegally parked those in the restricted areas. From the photographs filed before us by the Army Authority, it is very difficult to decipher the registration number of those vehicles. The Police Authority cannot evade its responsibility to comply with the order of this Court on the plea that the gathering was of substantial number of persons. The organizer of the rally, at the same time, also cannot elude its responsibility on the plea that the violators were not the members of their organisation. If a particular organizer invites the people to assemble at a place after giving undertaking to see that for that meeting there will be no violation of the prohibitions, it has duty to see that such violation does not take place at the relevant time and place lest it is held responsible. Even if any outsider not connected with that organiser violates any of the restrictions at the relevant point of time, it is the duty of the organizer to immediately report to the Police Authority complaining such violation. In this case, the DYFI has averred that its members camped at the relevant places to oversee that there was no violation of the order passed by this Court, but it is not their case that any complaint was made at their instance to the Police for preventing any such violation. (10) In the affidavit, although the Joint Commissioner of Police has assured that in future the Police will be more vigilant, we are unable to find any just reason for the Police Authority for not becoming vigilant even on that occasion. The Army Authority although took pain to take photographs of the illegal parking of the vehicles but none of the pictures was focussed towards the number plate of any of such vehicles. The Army Authority although took pain to take photographs of the illegal parking of the vehicles but none of the pictures was focussed towards the number plate of any of such vehicles. (11) In the absence of sufficient materials or supporting evidence placed before us, it is not possible for us to hold beyond reasonable doubt that it was the DYFI or its supporters or members who had actually violated the order of this Court by using open oven or parking vehicles in the prohibitive zones. But the fact remains that the order of this Court was definitely violated by various unidentified persons. (12) In such circumstances, we direct that in future, whenever a permission will be given to hold any rally or meeting within three kilometres of the Victoria Memorial Hall, it will be the duty of the Police to preserve Video recording of the incidents not only during the meeting but also a day prior to the scheduled time of the meeting at or around the place of the meeting and the cost of such Video recording should be realised from the organizer of the meeting. The organizer of the meeting should bear in mind that they having invited the people at large to muster at the place, it will be their duty to see that no violation of the order of this Court takes place at the instance of the people gathered there and to immediately report to the Police pointing out such disobedience. Inaction on their part to report to the Police pointing out such violation should be treated to be tacit consent of violation of the order passed by this Court. (13) We, thus, dispose of the affidavit filed by the petitioner with the above observation and guidance for the future. We make it clear this order will not stand in the way of the Police Authority to reinvestigate the matter if sufficient materials are placed before it showing violation of our order on that day nor will this order stand in the way of the Army Authority to make further probe in the matter and take appropriate step in accordance with law in case of getting hold of sufficient material in support of violation of the order. We have already indicated that for want of sufficient material we are unable to take any appropriate step against the violators of our order although we find that our order was definitely violated. The criminal cases initiated by the Police will continue in accordance with law without being influenced by this order. (14) In the facts and circumstances, there will be, however, no order as to costs.