Judgment : M. Jaichandren, J. 1. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 05.11.2013, made in W.P.(MD).No.17942 of 2013. 2. The Writ Petition, in W.P.(MD).No.17942 of 2013, had been filed by the petitioner therein, the respondent in the present writ appeal. The petitioner had filed the said writ petition praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Manadums directing the respondents therein, the appellants in the present Writ Appeal, to grant the necessary permission and to provide sufficient protection, during the function to be conducted by the Petitioner Trust, from 08.11.2013 to 10.11.2013, based on the applications submitted by the Petitioner Trust, on 19.10.2013, 26.10.2013 and 31.10.2013, for unveiling the structure, called "Mullivaaikkaal Martyrs Memorial", in Survey No.17/1A1, Pappa Nagar, Villar Village, Tanjore Panchayat Union, Tanjore District. 3. The petitioner, in the present Writ Petition, had stated that the Petitioner Trust, functioning under the name and style of "Ulagath Thamizhar Peramaippu Trust", is a registered trust, created for the welfare of the Tamil speaking people. The said trust had decided to erect a memorial called "Mullivaaikkaal Martyrs Memorial", in Tanjore District, in the State of Tamil Nadu. It would be a monument, dedicated to the memory of all the Tamilians, killed in Mullivaaikkaal area, during the final phase of the war waged against the Tamilians, living in Sri Lanka. 4. The petitioner had further stated that, based on the application, dated 23.02.2011, the first respondent, in the Writ Petition, had granted necessary clearance for the establishment of the said memorial, by his communication, dated 02.03.2011. Pursuant to the said communication, an application had been made before the fourth respondent in the Writ Petition, for necessary approval, on 25.01.2012, by paying the necessary processing fee. The fourth respondent in the Writ Petition had approved the building plan and granted the necessary permission for the said project. 5. It has also been stated that the High ways Department, by a communication, dated 25.08.2011, had granted the necessary approval for the establishment of a garden, near the structures. The entire property, where the monument stands, is in the name of the trust. As the monument had been completed, the Petitioner Trust had decided to hold a function for its unveiling, from 08.11.2013 to 10.11.2013. The entire property, where the monument stands, is in the name of the trust. As the monument had been completed, the Petitioner Trust had decided to hold a function for its unveiling, from 08.11.2013 to 10.11.2013. A number of dignitaries from all over the world had been invited and the function is scheduled to be held at Muthukumar Thidal, Villar Village, adjacent to the memorial. It has also been stated that the function would be conducted, peacefully, without any hindrance to the traffic and the general public. Even though the function is to be held in a private land, the Petitioner Trust had felt that it would be proper to apply to the third respondent, in the Writ Petition, for the necessary police protection, as a number of dignitaries would be attending the function. Therefore, an application had been made to the third respondent, in the Writ Petition, the Inspector of Police, Tanjore South Police Station, on 19.10.2013, seeking permission and protection for conducting the unveiling function at the memorial and the function to be held at Tamilarasi Mandapam, on 09.11.2013 and 10.11.2013. However, the Petitioner Trust had decided to change the venue of the function to be held, on 09.11.2013 and 10.11.2013, to the venue, where the main function is to be held, on 08.11.2013, due to the possibility of rains, during the said time. Therefore, applications had been made to the third respondent, on 26.10.2013 and 31.10.2013, seeking necessary permission and protection for conducting the function at Muthukumar Thidal, Villar Village. As there was no response from the respondents in the Writ Petition, the petitioner had filed the Writ Petition, in W.P.(MD).No.17942 of 2013, before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. The learned Single Judge, by his order, dated 05.11.2013, made in W.P. (MD).No.17942 of 2013. had allowed the said Writ Petition, filed by the respondent herein, directing the appellants in the present Writ Appeal, to grant the necessary permission and sufficient police protection, during the function, to be held, from 08.11.2013 to 10.11.2013, to unveil the structure, called as "Mullivaaikkaal Martyrs Memorial", which had been established with the permission of the appellants 1 and 4, in Survey No.17/1A1, Pappa Nagar, Villar Village, Thanjavur Panchayat Union, Thanjavur District. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned Single Judge, dated 05.11.2013, made in W.P.(MD).No.17942 of 2013, the respondents, in the said Writ Petition, have preferred the present Writ Appeal, before this Court. 7. Mr.AL.Somayaji, the learned Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the appellants, had submitted, inter alia, that the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dated 05.11.2013, in W.P.(MD).No.17942 of 2013, cannot be sustained, as no positive direction can be issued by way of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the authorities of the State to grant permission to the respondent herein, to conduct the function, from 08.11.2013 to 10.11.2013, as prayed for, by the respondent, in the Writ Petition, in W.P. (MD).No.17942 of 2013. 8. He had further submitted that the State Authorities should have been given the discretion to pass appropriate orders, considering the representations of the respondent, dated 19.10.2013, 26.10.2013 and 31.10.2013. Instead, the learned Single Judge, by his order, dated 05.11.2013, made in the Writ Petition, in W.P.(MD).No.17942 of 2013, had directed the authorities concerned to grant permission and to provide necessary police protection for conducting the function, from 08.11.2013 to 10.11.2013. The learned Advocate General had relied on the following decisions, in support of his contentions:- (i) Rama.Muthuramalingam Vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, 2004 (5) CTC 554 . (ii). K.Nissar Ahmed and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and others, W.P.No.13928 of 2006, dated 18.11.2006. 9. The learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellants had further submitted that the learned single Judge had issued a positive direction to grant permission for organising the function, in question, and for providing the police protection, without considering the relevant facts and circumstances of the case and without taking into consideration the submissions made on behalf of appellants. He had further submitted that the respondent had not obtained any permission from the fire safety and the other authorities relating to the erection of the 'pandhal' at the venue in which the function is to be held. The learned Single Judge had not considered the erection of the structure/statue in question, which had been erected, by encroaching upon a water channel maintained by the Public Works Department. 10. The learned Advocate General had also submitted that there are certain intelligence inputs, received from the Intelligence Agencies concerned, with regard to the safety of the participants in the function. 10. The learned Advocate General had also submitted that there are certain intelligence inputs, received from the Intelligence Agencies concerned, with regard to the safety of the participants in the function. Therefore, the order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 05.11.2013, in W.P.(MD) No.17942 of 2013, is to be set aside and the authorities of the State Government are to be permitted to decide, as to whether permission is to be granted for conducting the function, from 08.11.2013 to 10.11.2013. 11. He had also submitted that the State Authorities should be presumed to act in good faith and to pass appropriate orders on the representations of the respondent, dated 19.10.2013, 26.10.2013 and 31.10.2013, after considering all the necessary factors, including the intelligence reports obtained by them. The State Authorities are responsible for the maintenance of law and order, and therefore, they should be permitted to pass appropriate orders, considering the request of the respondent, for conducting the function. As such, the positive direction issued by the learned Single Judge, by his order, dated 05.11.2013, ought to be set aside and the authorities of the State should be given the discretion to consider all the necessary factors and pass appropriate orders, based on the representations of the respondent, dated 19.10.2013, 26.10.2013 and 31.10.2013. 12. Mr.K.M.Vijayan, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted that the organisers of the function would undertake to conduct the function in a peaceful and disciplined manner. They will abide by the laws in force, which would be governing their conduct. They would also be responsible for any untoward incidents that may take place, due to their omissions and commissions, in conducting the function. 13. The learned Senior Counsel had further submitted that no formal permission is required for conducting the function, as it would be held in a private property. However, the applications had been made, for obtaining the permission from the authorities concerned, by way of abundant caution. 14. He had relied on the following decisions, in support of his contentions:- (i). C.J.Rajan Vs.Deputy Superintendent of Police, 2008 (2) MLJ (Crl) 103. (ii). Home Secretary, Government of T.N. Vs.Era. Selvam, 2013 (3) MLJ 513 . 15. There is no doubt that Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression. 14. He had relied on the following decisions, in support of his contentions:- (i). C.J.Rajan Vs.Deputy Superintendent of Police, 2008 (2) MLJ (Crl) 103. (ii). Home Secretary, Government of T.N. Vs.Era. Selvam, 2013 (3) MLJ 513 . 15. There is no doubt that Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression. However, it is well settled that, even though Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression, the said right can be regulated by the State, on the grounds mentioned in 19(2) of the said Article. It is also clear that the responsibility to maintain law and order is cast on the State, and therefore, it is open to the authorities of the State to take appropriate steps to regulate such meetings and functions. However, from the information furnished to this Court, on behalf of the State Government, we do not find substantial grounds to hold that the permission prayed for, by the respondent, for conducting the function, from 08.11.2013 to 10.11.2013, ought to be rejected. 16. We make it clear that the grant of permission by the authorities of the State Government would not vest any right or interest in the property in question, in which certain constructions have been put up, as there is a civil dispute said to be pending, relating to the ownership of the land in question. It is for the parties concerned to settle their disputes, if any, before the appropriate civil forum, in the manner known to law. Further, the granting of permission by the authorities of the State Government, for conducting the function, from 08.11.2013 to 10.11.2013, cannot be said to be a recognition or acknowledgment of the ownership or possession of the property in question, by the parties concerned. Nor would it be an authorisation or acknowledgment of the validity of the structures, in question, constructed by the organisers of the function. 17. We are also conscious of the fact that the authorities of the State, especially, the law enforcing agencies, would be responsible for the maintenance of law and order, during the function. Therefore, they are expected to maintain law and order, by deploying sufficient police force to prevent untoward incidents from happening, during the function, which is to be held, from 08.11.2013 to 10.11.2013. 18. Therefore, they are expected to maintain law and order, by deploying sufficient police force to prevent untoward incidents from happening, during the function, which is to be held, from 08.11.2013 to 10.11.2013. 18. On hearing the submissions made by the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellants and the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, this Court had directed that if any information is available, with the State Authorities, with regard to the conducting of the function and the possibility of any law and order situation, that may arise, during the function and with regard to the other safety issues, that had arisen for the consideration of the State authorities, the same may be placed before this Court, for its consideration. Accordingly, a sealed envelope had been placed, before this Court, containing certain information, said to have been collected, with regard to the function to be held, from 08.11.2013 to 10.11.2013. We had considered the information submitted on behalf of the appellants and we had also perused the other records available before this Court. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellants and the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, we are of the considered view that sufficient grounds have not been shown for setting aside the order of the learned single Judge, dated 05.11.2013, made in W.P.(MD) No.17942 of 2013. The appellants have not been in a position to show that there would be a serious threat to the participants and that there is a possibility of a law and order situation arising during the function. Even otherwise, it is for the State Authorities to ensure the maintenance of law and order, by deploying sufficient police personnel, at the venue, during the function. 19. An affidavit of undertaking has also been filed, before this Court, by the Secretary of the Organising Committee of the 'Mullivaikkal Thirappu Nigazhchi' to be held, from 08.11.2013 to 10.11.2013. Even otherwise, it is for the State Authorities to ensure the maintenance of law and order, by deploying sufficient police personnel, at the venue, during the function. 19. An affidavit of undertaking has also been filed, before this Court, by the Secretary of the Organising Committee of the 'Mullivaikkal Thirappu Nigazhchi' to be held, from 08.11.2013 to 10.11.2013. Paragraph No.2 of the said affidavit, dated 07.11.2013, reads as follows:- "I hereby declare and undertake that I will take adequate care and responsibility to conduct the function without any hindrance to the law and order or any other conduct, which is forbidden by law during the conduct of the entire function within the premises where the function will be held, I will ensure that no statements affecting the integrity and sovereignty of the State will be made. I hereby undertake to abide the conditions prescribed by this Hon'ble High Court in furtherance of the above undertaking." 20. In such circumstances, taking into consideration all the relevant factors, we find it appropriate to dismiss the Writ Appeal filed by the appellants, confirming the order of the learned single Judge, dated 05.11.2013, made in the Writ Petition, in W.P.(MD) No.17942 of 2013. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. However, it goes without saying that the dispute, if any, in respect of the property in question, should be settled before the appropriate civil forum, by the parties concerned, in the manner known to law. It is also made clear that it would be open to the authorities concerned to initiate appropriate action against the respondent, if it is found to be necessary, in accordance with law, if the structure/statue, erected by the organizers of the function, is found to be unauthorised or illegal. It would also be open to the authorities concerned to impose any reasonable restriction, which they may find fit and appropriate, to maintain law and order during the function and for the conducting of the function, in a peaceful manner. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.