Judgment :- 1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners fundamental rights and direct to permit the petitioner to conduct public meeting on 12. 2010 at Muthurangan Salai, T.Nagar, Chennai-600017 and further direct to pay to the petitioner the actual damages of Rs.1,00,000/- and award exemplary cost. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the permission given to conduct public meetings on 1. 2010 regarding the assassination of Sri.Rajiv Gandhi and wrongful blame cast on the Tamils and expose the real culprit was cancelled by the second respondent at 12.00 noon on the same day. On 212. 2009, the petitioner applied for such permission setting out the venue, the list of speakers and permission was granted on 312. 2009. It is alleged in the affidavit that on earlier occasions, the petitioner and similarly placed persons conducted similar meetings. Due to the cancellation order passed by the second respondent at the last moment, petitioner incurred an expense of Rs.1.00 lakh as speakers have arrived from Bangalore, Trichy, Cuddalore, Ramanathapuram, Villupuram, etc., and for making arrangement for the said meeting. Hence a compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh towards loss sustained by the petitioner in making arrangement for the meeting is prayed for. 3. The writ petition was filed on 1. 2010. On 21. 2010 an interim order was passed by this Court by recording the statement made by the Additional Government Pleader stating that for the meeting to be held on 12. 2010, orders would be passed on 21. 2010 itself and the same will be served on the petitioner. Thereafter the case was adjourned to 2. 2010. However, permission was not granted to conduct the meeting on 12. 2010. Thereafter, the petitioner sought for permission to conduct a meeting on 23. 2010 from 6.00 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. and by order dated 3. 2010, this Court directed the second respondent to consider the request seeking permission to conduct meeting on 23. 2010 based on the application submitted on 13. 2010. On 13. 2010, the second respondent granted permission to conduct meeting with 14 conditions, pursuant to which the meeting was conducted by the petitioner on 23. 2010 and therefore the first limb of the prayer seeking permission to conduct public meeting at Muthurangam Salai, T.Nagar, Chennai-600017, no longer survives. 2010 based on the application submitted on 13. 2010. On 13. 2010, the second respondent granted permission to conduct meeting with 14 conditions, pursuant to which the meeting was conducted by the petitioner on 23. 2010 and therefore the first limb of the prayer seeking permission to conduct public meeting at Muthurangam Salai, T.Nagar, Chennai-600017, no longer survives. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the second limb of the prayer seeking compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh towards loss and damages for the last minute cancellation of meeting proposed to be held on 1. 2010 has to be decided in this writ petition and proper compensation has to be ordered by this Court. 4. The respondents have filed counter affidavit in this writ petition and justified the cancellation order passed on 1. 2010 by stating that on 312. 2009 permission was granted to conduct public meeting regarding the assassination of Sri.Rajiv Gandhi and wrongful blame cast on Tamils and to expose the real culprits. Thereafter the Police received information against the conduct of meeting from Intelligence Sources that there is every likelihood of law and order problem and imminent possibility of unrest and disturbance of public order and tranquility, as the topic itself is leading to controversy from a section of the people in the larger interest of the public safety and public order. Therefore the permission granted on 312. 2009 was cancelled to prevent law and order problem and an order was passed under section 41 of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888. According to the respondents, the said cancellation order was passed under Section 41(3) of the Act and no motive to stop the meeting is available, except on public interest and public safety. There is no illegality in the order and no compensation can be claimed from the respondents for the cancelled meeting. 5. Petitioner has filed a reply affidavit for the said counter affidavit by stating that the cancellation order was passed without any reason and extensive preparation having been made already for conducting the meeting on 1. 2010, the petitioner incurred expenses for printing posters and the petitioner also produced bills issued by Sri Kanagadurga Litho Press to show that he has paid Rs.34,000/- towards printing the posters. It is also stated in the reply affidavit that the persons who issued bills were threatened and tortured by the police. 6. 2010, the petitioner incurred expenses for printing posters and the petitioner also produced bills issued by Sri Kanagadurga Litho Press to show that he has paid Rs.34,000/- towards printing the posters. It is also stated in the reply affidavit that the persons who issued bills were threatened and tortured by the police. 6. Thesecond respondent filed rejoinder to the reply affidavit by stating that the letter obtained from Sri Kanagadurga Litho Press and one Chandrasekaran, owner of Sekar Electricals and Sound Services clearly established the fact that the amount paid for the meeting dated 1. 2010 was adjusted towards the expenses for conducting the meeting on 23. 2010. The allegation about the threatening of the persons, who issued the bills is denied. The alleged bill produced by the petitioner from Sri Kanagadurga Litho Press is stated as bogus bill and the same cannot be relied upon by this Court for the award of compensation as the bills have to be independently proved. It is further stated in the rejoinder affidavit that no mala fide can be attributed against the second respondent as the order was passed taking note of the larger interest of the public in terms of Section 41 of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888. 7. Thelearned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioners right to freedom of expression is very much affected and the second respondent having granted permission ought not to have cancelled the order granting permission at the last minute and due to the cancellation of the meeting at the last minute, the petitioner was compelled to spend towards inviting Speakers, printing of posters and for making of arrangements to conduct the meeting and therefore the petitioner is entitled to get compensation for the loss sustained. 8. The learned Additional Government Pleader on the basis of the counter affidavit as well as rejoinder affidavit submitted that the respondents are doing their sovereign function viz., maintaining the law and order and the second respondent having received Intelligence information about the likelihood of breach of peace, if the meeting was allowed to go on 1. 2010, by exercising powers under section 41 of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888, withdrew the permission granted, keeping in mind the public interest for the maintenance of public peace in the locality and there is no illegality in the said order. 2010, by exercising powers under section 41 of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888, withdrew the permission granted, keeping in mind the public interest for the maintenance of public peace in the locality and there is no illegality in the said order. The alleged loss sustained by the petitioner is not genuine as the meeting originally cancelled was subsequently conducted on 23. 2010 and the amount paid towards printing of posters and for loud speakers, etc., was adjusted and even if the petitioner has got any further grievance the same cannot be agitated before this Court without ascertaining the actual loss or damages sustained by the petitioner and therefore the writ petition filed for claiming damages is unsustainable. 9. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. 10. The issues to be decided in this writ petition are, .(i) Whether the second respondent is right in cancelling the permission granted on 312. 2009 to conduct public meeting on 1. 2010 at the last moment ? .(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation for the alleged loss due to the cancellation of the meeting proposed to be held on 1. 2010 ? 11. Issue No.1: In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner has clearly stated the purpose for which the meeting was arranged. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner sought for permission to conduct public meeting on 1. 2010 and the topic was about the assassination of Sri.Rajiv Gandhi, former Prime Minister of India. Considering the right of the organisers in respect of their freedom of expression and taking note of the overall aspects, the second respondent thought fit to grant permission by order dated 312. 2009. The second respondent subsequently received Intelligence report from various sources apprehending likelihood of breach of law and order problem and imminent possibility of unrest and disturbance of public order and tranquility as the title chosen by the petitioner was controversial. Hence the permission already granted was cancelled in exercise of the powers conferred under section 41 of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888. 12. Section 41 of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888 clearly empowers the police authority to regulate assemblies, meetings and processions in public places. Hence the permission already granted was cancelled in exercise of the powers conferred under section 41 of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888. 12. Section 41 of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888 clearly empowers the police authority to regulate assemblies, meetings and processions in public places. When the police receive Intelligence report with regard to the disturbance of law and order problem, to prevent the same, it is their duty to prohibit the conduct of the meeting. Power to regulate includes power to cancel the permission already granted for valid reasons. In this case, the second respondent has given valid reasons in the counter affidavit by stating that Intelligence report was received apprehending likelihood of law and order problem and imminent possibility of unrest and disturbance of public order and tranquility. When the police is vested with the said power under Section 41 of the Act, the petitioner cannot contend that the permission already granted ought not to have been cancelled. The ground reality about the likelihood of disturbance of public order and tranquility can be ascertained only by the Officer, who is in charge of the area based on the Intelligence report and this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot find out whether there was any sufficient ground to arrive at a decision to cancel the permission already granted. Since no mala fide is alleged against the second respondent and the permission having been granted by the very same second respondent for the subsequent meeting held on 23. 2010, I am of the view that the cancellation of permission originally granted to conduct the meeting on 1. 2010 based on the Intelligence report cannot be found fault with. 13. It is well settled in law that law enforcing authorities are the best judge for meeting a situation prevailing in a particular locality based on which appropriate decision is to be taken either to grant permission to conduct meeting in a particular place and at a particular time. The Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in 2004 WLR 865 (Rama.Muthuramalingam, State Propaganda Committee Member, Thanthai Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mannargudi and Another) considered similar issue and held that the High Court in writ jurisdiction cannot give positive direction to grant permission to conduct public meeting, even though police refuse to grant permission. It is further held therein that if the administrative authorities feel that by granting permission to conduct meeting it may create a law and order or public order problem, then they may prohibit such activities. Applying the principle laid down by the Division Bench to the facts of this case, I am of the view that the second respondent is justified in cancelling the permission granted to conduct meeting on 1. 2010 and there is no error in the said decision. 14. Issue No.2:Insofar as the direction to order compensation to the petitioner towards the alleged loss sustained by the petitioner due to the last minute cancellation of the meeting, the decision of the second respondent having been taken for maintaining public safety and public order, individual loss even if any sustained, cannot be ordered to be compensated. It is well settled in law that maintenance of public order is the sovereign function of the State and here the second respondent has prevented the petitioner from conducting the meeting, taking note of the public safety and public order. 15. In the order granting permission to conduct meeting issued on 312. 2009 in clause 9 it is clearly stated that the second respondent is entitled to cancel the permission granted if the police receive any report that by conducting the meeting public peace and tranquility will be affected. Thus, the petitioner was already put on notice/caution. In the decision reported in (2002) 7 SCC 478 (Rabindra Nath Ghosal v. University of Calcutta) the Supreme Court considered the issue regarding award of compensation if fundamental right of a citizen is infringed. In the said judgment in paragraph 9 it is held as follows: "9. The courts having the obligation to satisfy the social aspiration of the citizens have to apply the tool and grant compensation as damages in public law proceedings. Consequently when the court moulds the relief in proceedings under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution seeking enforcement or protection of fundamental rights and grants compensation, it does so under the public law by way of penalising the wrongdoer and fixing the liability for the public wrong on the State which has failed in its public duty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens. But it would not be correct to assume that every minor infraction of public duty by every public officer would commend the court to grant compensation in a petition under Articles 226 and 32 by applying the principle of public law proceeding. The court in exercise of extraordinary power under Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution, therefore, would not award damages against public authorities merely because they have made some order which turns out to be ultra vires, or there has been some inaction in the performance of the duties unless there is malice or conscious abuse. Before exemplary damages can be awarded it must be shown that some fundamental right under Article 21 has been infringed by arbitrary or capricious action on the part of the public functionaries and that the sufferer was a helpless victim of that act." From the above judgment it is evident that for claiming compensation under public law, one has to satisfy the Court that the authority acted with malice or conscious abuse. In this case the petitioner has not established any malice or conscious abuse of power on the part of the second respondent to claim compensation. Further the petitioner is claiming right under Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India. Such right is subject to restrictions imposed under Article 19(3) of the Constitution of India and not an absolute right. 16. If the police failed to prevent such a meeting and if any damages are caused by the organisers of the meeting against individual persons, then only the State Machinery can be blamed for not taking effective precautionary measures and the State can be ordered to pay compensation to the affected person for not maintaining the law and order properly. That being not the case here, the petitioner is not entitled to get compensation on the ground that due to last minute cancellation he incurred expenses for making arrangements for the meeting. 17. Though the cancellation order passed by the second respondent on 1. 2010 at the last moment is upheld on the facts and circumstances of this case, I am constrained to state that such kind of last minute cancellation of meetings should be avoided to prevent the wasteful expenditure by the organisers of the meetings. 17. Though the cancellation order passed by the second respondent on 1. 2010 at the last moment is upheld on the facts and circumstances of this case, I am constrained to state that such kind of last minute cancellation of meetings should be avoided to prevent the wasteful expenditure by the organisers of the meetings. Intelligence report can be obtained and viewed in the proper perspective at least some time in advance, so that the person who has been given permission, can be given advance intimation to cancel the meeting so, that unnecessary expenses can be avoided. The respondents shall consider the said aspect in future so that decision can be arrived at either to grant permission or to cancel the permission already granted, at the earliest possible time. The writ petition is dismissed with above observations. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.