Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2576 (MAD)

V. Manimaran v. Inspector of Police

2010-06-29

V.DHANAPALAN

body2010
Judgment By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. 2. Heard, Mr.S. Rajinikanth, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.N.Senthilkumar, learned Additional Government Reader for respondent. 3. What is challenged in this writ petition is the order passed by the respondent on 16. 2010 wherein the petitioner’s request for holding a demonstration on 16. 2010 has been rejected considering the implications of law and order problem and hindrance to the free flow of vehicular traffic. .4. According to the petitioner, he is the Secretary of Viduthalai Chiruthaikal Katchi (hereinafter called as VCK) Kattukannallur Camp. One Mr.K.P. Baskaran who is the convener of VCK was implicated in a case by the respondent Police. Therefore, they have decided to hold a demonstration in a democratic manner against the police atrocities on 16. 2010 at about 3.00 p.m. near the Bus stand of Kannamangalam, Tlruvannamalai District. A representation was submitted by the petitioner on 16. 2010 requesting the respondent to grant permission to hold demonstration and the same was refused in the impugned order dated 16. 2010. The petitioner states that the above order has been passed without giving any opportunity and the order is unjust and illegal and it is in violation of Article 19(1)(a)(b)(c) of the Constitution of India and also Section 30(2) of the Police Act. As no opportunity was given to the petitioner, the order violates principles of natural justice also. Therefore, the petitioner has sought to quash the order. 5. The respondent has filed a counter, wherein it is stated that the petitioner is the Secretary of VCK Camp, Kattukarnnallur and it is not correct to state that one K.P. Baskaran was falsely implicated in the case by the respondent police. In fact, only on the basis of the complaint which made out cognizable offences, the said case was registered against K.P. Baskaran. For registering a case against one person on the basis of the complaint which made out cognizable offences, the petitioner’s party have taken a decision to hold demonstration in a democratic manner against the police atrocities on 16. 2010 at 3.00 p.m. near bus stand, which is against law. Further, it is stated that the said KP. For registering a case against one person on the basis of the complaint which made out cognizable offences, the petitioner’s party have taken a decision to hold demonstration in a democratic manner against the police atrocities on 16. 2010 at 3.00 p.m. near bus stand, which is against law. Further, it is stated that the said KP. Baskaran was not arrested on the basis of his affiliation to VCK whereas the case was registered against him on the basis of his individual capacity for the offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating committed by him. It is further stated that the petitioner has given a petition on 16. 2010 to grant permission to hold demonstration on 16. 2010. Considering the implications of law and order problem and hindrance to the free flow of vehicular traffic, permission was refused after duly explaining the reasons for refusal. So, it is not correct to state that the order dated 16. 2010, refusing permission is done without giving any opportunity to the petitioner and that the said order is unjust and illegal. It is further stated that the impugned order refusing to hold demonstration is not violative of Article 19(1)(a)(b)(c) of the Constitution of India and also not violative of Section 3(2) of the Police Act and the principles of natural justice. The impugned order was served on the petitioner on 16. 2010. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner should have approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police or the Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai seeking permission to hold such demonstration. Without availing such remedies, the petitioner is not entitled to approach this Court. It is apparent that, the petitioner, in order to get some publicity and with some ulterior motive has come forward with this writ petition. .6. In the counter of the respondent, it is stated that on 6. 2010, many persons including Chinnapaiyan, S. Sivaprakasam, Gengan, Arjunan, Bharathi, Amsa and 23 others have given petitions to the District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District stating that the said K.P. Baskaran has collected Rs.5,000/- from the villagers falsely promising to get patta and committed criminal breach of trust and cheated the public and the said petitions were also forwarded to the Police. 2010, many persons including Chinnapaiyan, S. Sivaprakasam, Gengan, Arjunan, Bharathi, Amsa and 23 others have given petitions to the District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District stating that the said K.P. Baskaran has collected Rs.5,000/- from the villagers falsely promising to get patta and committed criminal breach of trust and cheated the public and the said petitions were also forwarded to the Police. The complaint given by Chinnapaiyan against K.P. Baskaran is that he has induced many poor people promising to get patta for house plot from the Government by using his party position and influence and collected Rs.1,000/- from the said complainants and Rs.5,000/-from 29 others and totally, he had collected Rs.1,40,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Forty thousand) and committed criminal breach of trust and cheated the said public. Therefore, on the complaint given by Chinnapaiyan, a case in Kannamangalam Police Station in P.S. Crime No.421 of 2010 under Section 406 and 420 I.P.C. was registered and the said accused K.P. Baskaran was arrested on 16. 2010 and was duty produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Arani and he was remanded. Instead of facing the trial in the Court, it appears that his supporter, namely Thiru. Manimaran, the petitioner herein under the guise of conducting a demonstration, had planned to indulge in violence on 16. 2010 at the new Bus Stand Kannamangalam. So, permission to conduct such demonstration and Police protection was legally refused. It is the stand of the respondent that if such a permission is granted to conduct the demonstration on behalf of the accused then each and every accused will come forward to get permission to conduct such a demonstration which will create more law and order problem. So, under the guise of freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, the petitioner and his men, cannot be allowed to conduct demonstration and so, permission was refused. Therefore, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. It is foremost contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being the Secretary of Viduthalai Chiruthaikal Katchi has sought for permission to hold a demonstration in a democratic manner which has been refused which amounts to denial of freedom of speech. Demonstration on behalf of political party, cannot be denied on the ground that there may be law and order problem. Demonstration on behalf of political party, cannot be denied on the ground that there may be law and order problem. Learned counsel rejoin on a decision P. Nedumaran v. State of Tamil Nadu (1999) LW (Crl) 73 would state that a mere apprehension that some disturbance may be caused in the meeting place and there may be law and order problem and the hindrance to the free flow of vehicular traffic, cannot be a ground to refuse the permission and it would not be sufficient reason for denying the rights. Therefore, the impugned order is in violation of Article 19(1)(a)(b)(c) of the Constitution of India. 8. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader would contend that based on the complaint given by Chinnapaiyan, a case was registered against K.P. Baskaran. An individual, who is facing a criminal case, cannot take advantage of a political party to hold a demonstration. As he had collected money from the public, there may be law and order problem and hindrance to the free flow of vehicular traffic. Therefore, permission to hold the demonstration was refused. There is no violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a)(b)(c) of the Constitution of India and also Section 30 (12) of the police Act and principles of natural justice. 9. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides and perused the materials documents annexed in the typed set of papers. .10. The facts and circumstances of the case would reveal that the petitioner is the Secretary of Viduthalal Chiruthaikal Katchi and in respect of the issuance of house patta, his party men involved in the process of issuing patta in consonance with the revenue authorities. As there was arrest of one of the conveners of the party and was implicated in a criminal case, the petitioner wanted to conduct demonstration, for which, he made an application to the respondent on 16. 2010, but the same was rejected by the impugned order on 16. 2010 stating that there may be law and order problem and hindrance to free flow of vehicular traffic. It is stated that they have explained the petitioner the reason for rejection. It is seen that a complaint given against the convener Mr.K.P. Baskaran has been registered and the authorities have already moved the Judicial Magistrate; Arani and this person was remanded to judicial custody and he is facing trial. It is stated that they have explained the petitioner the reason for rejection. It is seen that a complaint given against the convener Mr.K.P. Baskaran has been registered and the authorities have already moved the Judicial Magistrate; Arani and this person was remanded to judicial custody and he is facing trial. These are all the matters which are in the domain of the respondent to proceed against the person who has involved in the criminal case and they can also contest the matter. As far as the permission to hold the demonstration is concerned, they have to consider it because of the fact that the petitioner’s association are involved in the process of issuance of patta for the house sites to the public and being a political party, as they are Secretary and Convener and others, they are having rights to tell the people that these rights are available. .11. A careful analysis of the case reveals that the meeting which the petitioner wanted to hold was to be held on 16. 2010 and the authority ought not have refused the permission mechanically. They should be in a position to satisfy the Court that such a refusal falls strictly within the ambit of the permissible ground for restricting the exercise of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. A mere apprehension that some disturbance may be caused in the meeting place and there may be law and order problem and the hindrance to the free flow of vehicular traffic, cannot be a ground to refuse the permission and it would not be sufficient reason for denying the rights. Even under the Madras City Police Act, the. police have power to depute one or more police officials to be present at the meeting. If, at the meeting, the police officers find anything illegal, it would be open to them to proceed against the persons who are causing any hindrance to the public. A blanket order refusing to permit the conduct of the meeting to be held is not a proper method while exercising the power in a matter of fundamental rights of freedom of speech, expression and assembly. A blanket order refusing to permit the conduct of the meeting to be held is not a proper method while exercising the power in a matter of fundamental rights of freedom of speech, expression and assembly. This position has been explained in the decision of this Court P. Nedumaran v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra) wherein in paragraph 19, it has been held as follows: .“The meeting which the petitioner had wanted to hold was to have been held on 11. 1997, well over a year ago. If the petitioner were to make a fresh application for holding a meeting, the authorities ought not to refuse permission mechanically. They should be in apposition to satisfy the Court that such refusal falls strictly within the ambit of the permissible grounds for restricting the exercise of fundamental rights under Article 19 of the Constitution. A mere apprehension that some disturbance maybe caused in the meeting place would not be sufficient under Section 41 of the Madras City Police Act, the police have the power to depute one or more police officers to be present at the meeting. If at the meeting such police officers were to find that anything illegal was being done, it would be open to them to take such further action as may be considered necessary in the circumstances. A blanket order refusing to permit the meeting to be held is not the method of relating the exercise of fundamental rights of free speech, expression and assembly.” .12. A careful reading of the above decision and the facts in question and a perusal of the impugned order would make it clear that the manner of exercise of power by the respondent is contrary to the established law. A mechanical rejection, without affording any opportunity and without looking into the reality of the situation, but on a mere apprehension at there may be law and order problem and hindrance to the vehicular traffic, would not be a sufficient ground to reject the petitioner’s permission. Though they have sought for a permission to hold the meeting on 16. 2010, they have come out with an additional affidavit stating that they may be permitted to hold the meeting on 26. 2010 or on any other future dates if the respondent permits. 13. The above being the position, the impugned order dated 16. Though they have sought for a permission to hold the meeting on 16. 2010, they have come out with an additional affidavit stating that they may be permitted to hold the meeting on 26. 2010 or on any other future dates if the respondent permits. 13. The above being the position, the impugned order dated 16. 2010 passed by the respondent, cannot be sustained and hence, the same is set aside. The writ petition is allowed, with a direction to the respondent to grant permission to the petitioner if the petitioner makes an application for any future dates. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.1 of 2010 are closed. Petition allowed.