Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 811 (MAD)

J. Anbalagan v. Commissioner Police

2012-02-15

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2012
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of a Certiorari, to quash the order dated 10.12.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai declining permission to the petitioner to conduct 'Patti Mandram' at Anna Nagar, Mylapore, T.Nagar and Triplicane. 2. The date on which the petitioner had proposed to hold 'Patti Mandram' was notified as 10.12.2011 to 13.12.2011. As the period for holding the 'Patti Mandram' has expired, this writ petition has been indued infructuous. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contends that the reasons for declining the permission on the face of it, is not sustainable in law, as the Commissioner of Police, cannot direct the petitioner to hold a 'Patti Mandram' at a particular place, as the holding of the public meeting including 'Patti Mandram' are regulated by Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act, 1888, which reads as under: 41.) Power to regulate assemblies, meetings and processions in public places, etc., (1) The Commissioner or, subject to his orders, any Police Officer above the rank of head constable, may, from time to time, as occasion may require direct the conduct of all assemblies, meetings and processions may pass: keep order in public places and prevent obstructions on the occasion of such assemblies, meetings and processions, and in the neighbourhood of places of worship during the ti e of public worship and in any case when public places may be thronged or liable to be obstructed; and may licence and regulate or prohibit the use of music or of sound amplifiers in any area. (2) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4), the Commissioner may, by order in writing, prohibit any assembly, meeting or procession if he considers such prohibition to be necessary for the preservation of the public peace or public safety. Provided that no order under this sub-section shall, without the sanction of the State Government, remain in force for more than fifteen days from the date on which such order takes effect. (3) (a) When the order referred to in sub-section (2) is in force any person who intends to convene or collect any assembly or meeting in any public place or to direct or promote any procession, shall make an application to the Commissioner for permission. (3) (a) When the order referred to in sub-section (2) is in force any person who intends to convene or collect any assembly or meeting in any public place or to direct or promote any procession, shall make an application to the Commissioner for permission. The application shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be specified by the Commissioner in his behalf and shall be made not less than five days prior to the date, on which the assembly or meeting is to be convened or collected or the procession is to be formed." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the Honourable Division Bench Judgment of this Court in C.J.Rajan, Madurai-2 vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mayiladuthurai and Another ( 2008(3) MLJ 926 ) holding that the provisions under the Police Act are only regulatory in nature, therefore, the request to hold meeting cannot be declined, but only regulated. 5. The learned Advocate General on the other hand, placed reliance on the decision of honourable Division Bench of this Court in Rama,Muthuramalingam vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mannargudi and another (2004(4) L.W.737), wherein, it has been laid down that, it is the discretion of the administrative authority to decide whether speaking on a subject would create any law and order or public order problem or not, therefore, it should be left entirety to the administrative authority to decide in its discretion, without any judicial interference. 6. The reliance is also placed on the Honourable Division Bench judgment of this Court in Vinayaga Chathurthi Madhya Kuzhu vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another (1997 MLJ (Crl.) 142) wherein the honourable Division Bench was pleased to laid down as under: "22.) The decision in Madhu Limaye vs. S.D.M. Monghyr, A.I.R. 1971 SC 2486, has been relied upon by both sides, in which it has been held with reference to Article 19(2), (3) and (4) and the expression 'public order' occurring in those provisions and the scope of the said expression and also the scope of the expression 'in the interest of public order' thus, "A person playing loud music in his own house in the middle of the night may disturb public tranquility, but he is not causing public disorder. Public order not doubt, also requires absence of disturbance of a state of serenity in society but it goes further. Public order not doubt, also requires absence of disturbance of a state of serenity in society but it goes further. It means what the French designated order publique, defined as an absence of insurection, riot, turbulence or crimes of violence. The expression 'public order' includes absence of all acts while are danger to the security of the State and also acts which are comprehensed by the expression 'order public' explained above, but not acts which disturb only the serenity of others", Therefore, it is clear that the rights guaranteed under Articles 19 (1)(b) and 25 and 25 cannot be claimed as absolute rights. In fact, any right claimed as absolute right will not be exercisable, as there will be no orderliness in exercising such a right band as a result thereof, it would affect the rights of the other persons, who also enjoy similar rights. Consequently, it will lead to chaos, and there will be no peace resulting, in a fight between the individuals and communities. As a result thereof, no one would be able to exercise his right. Hence, it is necessary that the right guarnateed under Articles 19, 25 and 26 should be regulated. It is because of this, the Constitution makers have specifically subjected these rights to the existing law and the future law imposing such restrictions in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India of public order, reasonable restrictions in the exercise of the rights conferred therein. As already pointed out, Articles 19(1) (b) and 25 and 26 open with the words, subject to public order, morality and health. Temporary Orders for prohibition of meeting or procession to prevent imminent breach of peace are held to be reasonable restrictions, upon the freedom under Clause (b) of Art.19(1) of the Constitution. Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 884: (1961) 3 S.C.R. 423 and Kishan v. State of M.P. (1964)1 S.C.R. 765 . 7. The reading of the impugned order, shows that administrative authority did not come to the conclusion, that the subject or speeches were likely to create any Law and Order problem to impose a ban but, directed the petitioner to hold 'Patti Mandram' in the hall. 7. The reading of the impugned order, shows that administrative authority did not come to the conclusion, that the subject or speeches were likely to create any Law and Order problem to impose a ban but, directed the petitioner to hold 'Patti Mandram' in the hall. In any case, as observed above, it is not necessary at this stage to go into the merit of the controvercy as to whether the petitioner is entitled to hold 'Patti Mandram' or not, as the dates fixed are already over. 8. This writ petition is therefore, disposed of, with the liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh to the respondent for holding the 'Patti Mandram' on any future date. In case any application is made, the respondent is directed to consider and decide as to whether, the permission is to be given or not by recording the reasons for such a decision within fifteen days of receipt of the application and supply copy of the order to enable the petitioner to challenge the same in accordance with law if so advised, if the permission is refused. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.