Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 82 (MAD)

K. Duraisamy v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Mamallapuram Sub-Division Kancheepuram District

2012-01-05

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2012
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order dated 10.12.2011 passed by respondent no.2, declining the request of the petitioner to hold one day hunger strike. 2. The petitioner is a Ward Member in Sathurangapattinam Local Panchayat. The case of the petitioner is that the Kalpakkam Nuclear Power Plant is functioning in Kalpakkam Town and due to continuous functioning of the nuclear power plant, the people residing in and around Kalpakkam, are inflicted with various diseases including cancer. 3. The case of the petitioner further is that study shows that in the last 10 years, 244 cases of cancer are deducted in Kalpakkam alone. It is the case of the petitioner that there is no specialty hospital to deal with radiation. The petitioner, being a Public spirited person, gave representation to the respondents to grant him permission to conduct one day fast on behalf of the Forum near Poigai Karai Roundtana, Sathurangapattinam, Kancheepuram District on 12.12.2011 from morning to evening, demanding safety features for the people of Kalpakkam, due to the health hazards of Kalpakkam Nuclear Power Plant. The representation of the petitioner has been rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order on the ground that it is a fundamental right of the petitioner to raise their grievances by agitation, therefore, it is not open to the respondents to interfere with this right. The petitioner also submits that he will not create any law and order problem and would resort to peaceful protest, to claim remedies for health hazards, being faced by the Public. 5. The writ petition is opposed by the respondents. In the counter, the stand taken by the respondents reads as under: "4c. Though the petitioner in his requisition has stated that the proposed fast was to be held near Poigaikarai Roundtana, in the original printed notice, the venue is noted as "Fort, Beach". The Senior Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force (Ministry of Home Affairs) in his letter dated 09.12.2011 has stated that the proposed protest is in between DAE T/ship and DAE outside the plant and due to that employees may have been stopped to reach the worksite and requested to take necessary action to avert any untoward incident to maintain law and order at surrounding area of DAE Kalpakkam. 4d. 4d. In view of the promulgation of the Police Act and the request for the protection of the Plant by the Senior Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, upon the orders of the Deputy Superintendent of Police refusing permission to the petitioner, the second respondent herein issued Police Notice dated 10.12.2011 to the petitioner informing that the permission sought for by him is refused as the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mamallapuram has refused permission for holding the fast. The notice rejecting the permission is in the interest of maintaining the public order and the safety to the Nuclear Plant and to avoid any untoward incidents. The refusal for the permission is not violative of any provisions of the Police Act and the same is legally and constitutionally valid and maintainable." 6. Section 30(1) of the Police Act, 1861, reads as under: "30. Regulation of public assemblies and processions and licensing of the same” (1) The District Superintendent or Assistant District Superintendent of Police may, as occasion requires, direct the conduct of all assemblies and processions on the public roads, or in the public streets or thoroughfares, and prescribe the routes by which, and the times at which, such processions may pass." 7. The reading of Section 30(1) of the Act, clearly stipulates that the District Superintendent or Assistant District Superintendent of Police, is competent authority to grant permission. 8. Consequently, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to grant permission to the petitioner to hold protest for one day at the place to be specified by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, viz., the first respondent herein, so that no law and order problem is created.