ORDER Heard Mr. G.S. Mani, the petitioner appearing in-person. 2. In this writ petition preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a command to the State of Tamil Nadu to ensure maintenance of law and order in the State in the background of protests and strikes including road and rail block agitations over the NEET examination and further not to permit political parties and public to conduct illegal strike/boycott/human chain/road blocking/rail roko or any other mode of strike against the NEET examination because of the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court. There are other additional prayers. We need not refer to the same for the time being. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Mani that the State has the obligation to maintain law and order so as to obviate any situation that gives rise to law and order problems in protest against a judgment of this Court. It is also urged by him that by virtue of 'bandhs' and road blocks, the normal life is jeopardized and the persons who are in dire need to move, face immense difficulty. The petitioner would contend that the rights of the citizens are gravely affected, when life and property are in peril. It is contended by him that neither political parties nor any group or any individual can take the law into his own hands and obstruct the movement of the vehicles or the people at large by creating a law order situation. 4. Placing reliance on a two-Judge Bench decision rendered in All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu and Others (2009) 5 SCC 452, he would urge that this Court may pass an interim order in terms of the said decision as there is grave urgency. He has drawn our attention to paragraphs 10 and 11 of the said judgment. He has also drawn our attention to the pronouncement in Bharat Kr. K. Palicha v. State of Kerala, AIR 1997 Ker 291 which has been approved by this Court in Communist Party of India (M) v. Bharat Kumar (1998) 1 SCC 201 . Eventually, the petitioner has drawn our attention to paragraphs 19 to 21, which read as follows:- “19. He has also drawn our attention to the pronouncement in Bharat Kr. K. Palicha v. State of Kerala, AIR 1997 Ker 291 which has been approved by this Court in Communist Party of India (M) v. Bharat Kumar (1998) 1 SCC 201 . Eventually, the petitioner has drawn our attention to paragraphs 19 to 21, which read as follows:- “19. In the present case, apart from the State of Tamil Nadu, out of the political parties, namely, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, Indian National Congress, Communist Party of India (Marxist), Communist Party of India and Pattali Makkal Katchi, only Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam has appeared before us, whom we have heard at length. 20. After taking into consideration the entire matter, prima facie, we are also of the view that the call given by the aforesaid political parties is a call for bandh and not strike/hartal. Accordingly, we have no option but to issue notices to the respondents and pass interim order non-appearing 21. Issue notice. Until further orders, Respondents 3 to 7 are restrained from proceeding with the call for bandh in the State of Tamil Nadu on 1-10-2007 pursuant to the resolution dated 24-9-2007 or any other day.” 5. Having heard the petitioner appearing in-person and taking note of the principle stated in All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (supra) and Bharat Kumar (supra), we are only inclined to issue notice to respondent Nos.1 and 2. No notice need be issued to respondent No.3. A copy of the petition be served on Mr. Yogesh Kanna, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu. In addition, Dasti service is permitted. 6. A copy of the petition be also served on the learned Advocate General for the State of Tamil Nadu. Learned Advocate General is requested to assist the Court on the next date of hearing. 7. As an interim measure, it is directed that it shall be the obligation of the Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, respondent No.1 and the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Home, Government of Tamil Nadu, respondent No.2, to ensure that law and order is maintained throughout the State in the wake of the present situation in respect of the NEET examination. As an interim measure, it is directed that it shall be the obligation of the Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, respondent No.1 and the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Home, Government of Tamil Nadu, respondent No.2, to ensure that law and order is maintained throughout the State in the wake of the present situation in respect of the NEET examination. The Chief Secretary shall see to it that anyone involved in any kind of 'bandh' or activity that disrupts the normal life and detrimentally affects law and order in the State of Tamil Nadu, shall be booked under the appropriate law. 8. We may clearly state here that a peaceful protest or criticism or dissent is different than creation of a law and order situation. Every citizen of this country has a fundamental right to peacefully protest and demonstrate, but not to cause a situation that results in violence and paralyzes the law and order situation. Let the matter be listed on 18th September, 2017.