Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1739 (MAD)

T. Ravi v. Deputy Commissioner of Police

2017-06-16

V.PARTHIBAN

body2017
ORDER : This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the order No.02/D1PS/2017 dated 10.06.2017, quash the same and consequently permit the petitioner to conduct public meeting on 17.6.2017 at 5.00 p.m. Near Sirkazhi Town Old Bus Stand or any subsequent days. 2. The petitioner is a public spirited person and belongs to an Organization, called “Makkal Athikaram”. According to the petitioner, the said organization has been espousing the cause of public interest in all matters of concern, like farmers' welfare, illegal sand mining and quarrying, etc., According to the petitioner, the organization has been conducting public meetings and organizing the protests peacefully without disturbing the public order and tranquility, highlighting the various public issues, seeking attention of the public at large. 3. According to the petitioner, they have approached the respondents with an application, seeking permission to hold a public meeting on 17.6.2017 at 5.00 p.m. near Sirkazhi Town Old Bus Stand. In the said place, several political and public meeting were permitted earlier by the respondents and such meetings did take place and no disturbance had been caused to the movement of the public and no public interest was affected. According to the petitioner, without considering the earnest request made by the Organization for conducting the meeting, the second respondent, by his proceedings dated 10.6.2017, refused to grant permission on the ground that the conduct of the meeting would result in law and order situation and as per Section 30(2) of the Police Act, no permission can be granted for the conduct of the meeting. The said proceedings of the second respondent, was put to challenge in the present Writ Petition. 4. On behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit has been filed inter alia stating that the request of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that 30(2) Police Act is in force and there is a possibility for breach of public peace. 5. Shri V. Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the refusal of the permission for conducting the peaceful meeting by the second respondent is clearly unconstitutional, unjust and unfair and the same cannot be countenanced both in law and on facts. 5. Shri V. Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the refusal of the permission for conducting the peaceful meeting by the second respondent is clearly unconstitutional, unjust and unfair and the same cannot be countenanced both in law and on facts. In support of his contention, the learned counsel also relied upon the order of this Court dated 22.6.2012 passed in W.P.No.15425 of 2012. He would specifically draw the attention of this Court to para 8 of the order, which reads as under: “8. Therefore, it is too late for the respondents to refuse permission to hold a meeting on a matter of public importance. With respect to the respondents' reliance upon Section 30(2) of the Police Act, 1861, it can only be said that it enables the respondents to direct the control and conduct of all assemblies and processions on public road or in the public streets or thoroughfares and to prescribe the Rules by which and the times by which the processions may pass and Section 30(2) and (3) on which reliance was placed, is extracted below: Sec 30(2): He may also, on being satisfied that it is intended by any persons or class of persons to convene or collect an assembly in any such road, street or thoroughfare, or to form a procession which would, in the judgment of the Magistrate of the district, or of the sub-division of a district, if uncontrolled, be likely to cause a breach of the peace, require by general or special notice, that the persons convening or collecting such assembly or directing or promoting such procession shall apply for a licence. (3) )On such application being made, he may issue a licence, specifying the names of the licensees and defining the conditions on which alone such assembly or such procession is to be permitted to take place, and otherwise giving effect to this section.” 6. In the above decision, this Court has held that the said provision, i.e. Section 30(2) of the Police Act, is only a regulatory power and not a blanket power to trifle any democratic dissent of the citizens by the police. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner, would further contend that the refusal as indicated in the impugned proceedings does not disclose any details except stating there would be law and order situation if the meeting is permitted to take place. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner, would further contend that the refusal as indicated in the impugned proceedings does not disclose any details except stating there would be law and order situation if the meeting is permitted to take place. Such a bald statement cannot be the basis for denying the constitutional right of a citizen or organization for holding any meeting peacefully, of course, without affecting the public order or tranquility. 8. The learned Special Government Pleader, while reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit, has strongly opposed any intervention by this Court. 9. In view of the facts and circumstances and considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the order passed by this Court in the above decision, this Court is of the view that the impugned proceedings dated 10.6.2017 of the second respondent, cannot be sustained. It appears that the purported meeting scheduled to be held on 17.6.2017 at 5.00 p.m. near Sirkazhi Town Old Bus stand as requested by the petitioner, it is imperative for this Court to pass urgent orders to safeguard the valuable rights of the organization for holding such a peaceful meeting highlighting certain issues of public concern. In such view of the matter, the impugned proceedings dated 10.6.2017 of the second respondent is set aside. Consequently, the second respondent is directed to grant permission to the petitioner for holding the meeting on 17.6.2017 at 5.00 p.m. near Sirkazhi Town Old Bus Stand as requested in his representations dated 5.6.2017 and 9.6.2017. It is open to the second respondent to impose whatever reasonable conditions that may be required in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is also made clear that the petitioner organization shall hold the meeting peacefully and complete the same without causing any nuisance and without affecting the public order or tranquility. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.