ORDER : This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for mandamus declaring the order dated 28.10.2021 passed in Rc.No.531/L&O-III/2021, by the 2nd respondent –Director General of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 19(1)(a) & 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India and consequently, sought direction to the 2nd respondent –Director General of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh, to grant permission to the 1st petitioner Trust and its members to conduct Maha Padayatra from 01.11.2021 to 17.12.2021 from Tullur Village, Guntur District to Tirumala, Chittoor District. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents 1 to 7. 3. The factual matrix of the Writ Petition as per the case pleaded by the petitioners may be stated as follows : The 1st petitioner is a registered charitable Trust established under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 in the name and style “Amaravathi Parirakshna Samithi” and 2nd petitioner is the Secretary of the 1st petitioner Trust and the 3rd petitioner is the President of the 1st petitioner Trust. It is stated that the 1st petitioner Trust was established with the primary objective of promoting the brand image of “Amaravathi”, the capital city of Andhra Pradesh, and to protect the interests of the farmers, who have given their lands to establish the said capital city for Andhra Pradesh under the Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority Act (hereinafter called as “A.P. CRDA Act”). It is stated that 1st petitioner Trust has passed a resolution dated 08.10.2021 resolving to take out Maha Padayatra which is scheduled to commence from Tulluru Village, Guntur District to Tirumala, Chittoor District, from 01.11.2021 to 17.12.2021 in the interest and welfare of the people and to bring awareness among the people of the State to have one capital city for the State of Andhra Pradesh as against the policy of the present State Government to have three capitals for the State of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, pursuant to the resolution passed by the 1st petitioner Trust, the petitioners have submitted various representations before the 2nd respondent – Director General of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh, and other police authorities, dated 11.10.2021, 12.10.2021 and 14.10.2021, requesting them to grant permission to conduct Maha Padayatra as the police are empowered and obligated to grant permission under Section 30 of the Police Act. It is stated that eventhough the said representations are submitted well in advance seeking permission and as the same are not considered that the petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing a writ petition in W.P.No.24211 of 2021 and this Court, by order dated 25.10.2021, disposed of the said writ petition directing the 2nd respondent –Director General of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh, to consider and pass appropriate orders on the said representations on or before 28.10.2021. Pursuant to the said direction of this Court the 2nd respondent – Director General of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh, has considered the representation and passed an order. However, the 2nd respondent rejected the permission to the petitioners to conduct the said Maha Padayatra. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court by way of filing the present Writ Petition challenging the legal validity of the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent – Director General of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh, in rejecting the permission as per the order, dated 28.10.2021. It is pleaded that none of the grounds on which the permission was rejected is legally tenable and that the petitioners as citizens of this country got a fundamental right to organize procession to ventilate their grievance. Therefore, they sought declaration that the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent – Director General of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh, is illegal and unconstitutional and consequently, sought direction to the respondent police officials to grant permission to the petitioners to conduct Maha Padayatra as sought for. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the 1st petitioner Trust and its members are all residents of the area falling within the limits of the proposed capital city named as “Amaravathi” under the A.P. CRDA Act and they have given their lands for the purpose of establishing the said capital city under the A.P. CRDA Act during the regime of erstwhile Government and now the present Government has taken a decision to decentralize the capital and proposed to have three capitals for the State of Andhra Pradesh and as it would be detriment to the interest of the members of the 1st petitioner Trust that the petitioners have been agitating against the said decision of the present Government for the last more than 670 days. He would submit that as part of their agitation that they intend to take out a procession by conducting Maha Padayatra from Tulluru Village, Guntur District to Tirumala, Chittoor District, naming it as “Nyayasthanam to Devasthanam” and contends that as citizens of the country, they got a fundamental right under the Constitution of India to hold such procession peacefully and the police are not justified in rejecting the permission to conduct a peaceful procession. Therefore, he would pray to declare that the impugned order of the 2nd respondent – Director General of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh, in rejecting the permission as illegal and unsustainable under law and thereby prayed to direct the 2nd respondent – Director General of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh, to accord permission to the petitioners to hold peaceful procession as sought for and he would submit that the petitioners will be abide by any of the conditions that may be imposed by this Court to conduct peaceful procession of the said Maha Padayatra. 5. Learned Additional Advocate-General appearing for the respondents opposed the Writ Petition. He would submit that the issue relating to the abolition of the AP CRDA Act and bringing a new enactment in its place to have three capitals for the State is being questioned in the Court of Law and a batch of Writ Petitions relating to the said issue are pending before the Full Bench of this Court and when the matter is sub judice before the Court that the petitioners are not justified in agitating against the said issue, more particularly, by taking a public procession passing through four districts from Tullur Village, Guntur District to Tirumala, Chittoor District. So, he would oppose for grant of any such permission on the aforesaid ground. He would then contend that if any such permission is accorded to conduct Maha Padayatra on public roads and more particularly passing through the highway, it would cause inconvenience and obstruction to the public and also it may create traffic problem. He would also submit that there is every possibility of committing breach of peace as the other sections of people, who are opposing the agitation of the people, may enter into confrontation with the petitioners while passing through the villages and it would be difficult for the police to control the law and order situation or to provide protection throughout from Tullur Village to Tirumala. He would also submit that using D.J. groups and loud speakers would also cause inconvenience to the public and cause nuisance. He would finally submit that the Union of India has issued guidelines and instructions as there is a threat of third wave of COVID disease and instructed the State to take appropriate steps to prevent public from moving closely in public places and as such, in the said circumstances, it is not legally permissible to allow the petitioners to take out the said public procession passing through four districts as it is hazardous to the health of the public and also to the members of the 1st petitioner Trust. He would also submit that about 69 F.I.Rs. were registered against the agitators relating to the present issue and in view of the said previous history relating to the said cases, it is also not safe to permit the petitioners to take out the said procession as the possibility of the petitioners being indulged in any acts of violence cannot be ruled out in the said circumstances. Therefore, he would pray for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 6. The fact that the previous Government has brought in the A.P. CRDA Act into existence for the purpose of establishing a capital city for the newly carved out State of Andhra Pradesh under the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014, is not disputed. Similarly, the fact that the farmers in the area, where the said capital city named as “Amaravathi” is proposed to be located, have given their lands to the Government in the land pooling scheme under the aforesaid AP CRDA Act is also not in dispute. Similarly, the fact that the present Government has introduced a policy of having three capitals for the State and that they have abolished the earlier AP CRDA Act is also not in dispute. The aggrieved persons have also been fighting a legal battle in this Court by way of filing various Writ Petitions challenging the said policy decision of the Government to have three capitals and the said issue is now pending adjudication before the Full Bench of this Court. 7. The aggrieved persons have also been fighting a legal battle in this Court by way of filing various Writ Petitions challenging the said policy decision of the Government to have three capitals and the said issue is now pending adjudication before the Full Bench of this Court. 7. The members of 1st petitioner Trust i.e., Amaravati Parirakshana Samithi claim to be residents of the area covered by the said proposed capital city ‘Amaravathi’ and they feel aggrieved by the policy of the present Government to have three capitals for the State of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, they have been agitating against the said decision of the Government for the last more than 670 days. Now, in the process of their agitation, they intend to have a procession in the name and style ‘Maha Padayatra’ from ‘Nyayasthanam to Devasthanam’ from 01.11.2021 to 17.12.2021 for a period of 47 days. It is stated that to bring awareness among the people of the State and to ventilate their grievance relating to the agitation that they intend to have the said Maha Padayatra from Tulluru Village, Guntur District to Tirumala, Chittoor District. 8. Therefore, in the background of the aforesaid factual scenario, the core question involved in the Writ Petition is whether the petitioners are entitled to permission to conduct Maha Padayatra from Tulluru to Tirumala or not. 9. Adverting the same, it is relevant in this context to consider Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b) and 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India. Article 19(1)(a) envisages that all citizens of the country shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression and as per Article 19(1)(b), all citizens have their right to assemble peacefully and without arms and as per Article 19(1)(d), all citizens have right to move freely throughout the territory of India. These rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b) and 19(1)(d) to the citizens of the country are part of fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. The Apex Court, while interpreting the Scope of Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India, held that right to carry on procession to ventilate the grievance of the citizens of the country is their fundamental right and when the citizens of the country in exercise of the said fundamental right intend to have peaceful procession or demonstration, the same cannot be curtailed. In fact the legal position whether the citizens of the country have got any fundamental right to carry on procession to ventilate their grievances is not res nova and the same has been well settled. There are long line of judicial precedents dealing with that issue. 10. Way back in the year 1961 itself, the Supreme Court in the case of Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra, 1961 (3) SCR 423 held as follows. “The right of citizens to take out processions or to hold public meetings flows from the right in Article 19(1)(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms and the right to move anywhere in the territory of India.” 11. Dealing with the question whether right to make a demonstration is protected under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b), the Apex Court in the case of Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar, (1962) Supp 3 SCR 369 held that right to protest is a fundamental right and the State must aid the right to assembly of the citizens. In the case of Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, (1973) 1 SCC 227 , Apex Court held that the State cannot by law abridge or take away the right of assembly by prohibiting assembly on every public street or public place. The State can only make regulations in aid of the right of assembly of each citizen and can only impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order. 12. Considering the law laid down in the above judgments rendered on the subject, the Supreme Court in the case of Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. the Union of India, AIR 2018 SC 3476 : 2018 (10) SCJ 685 held that holding peaceful demonstration by the citizens of the country in order to air their grievances and to ensure that these grievances are heard in the relevant quarters, is its fundamental right. This right is specifically enshrined under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India. Article 19(1)(a) confers a very valuable right on the citizens, namely, right of free speech. Likewise, Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India gives right to assemble peacefully and without arms. Together, both these rights ensure that the people of this country have right to assemble peacefully and protest against any of the actions or the decisions taken by the Government or other governmental authorities which are not to the liking. Likewise, Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India gives right to assemble peacefully and without arms. Together, both these rights ensure that the people of this country have right to assemble peacefully and protest against any of the actions or the decisions taken by the Government or other governmental authorities which are not to the liking. Legitimate dissent is a distinguishable feature of any democracy. Question is not as to whether the issue raised by the protestors is right or wrong or it is justified or unjustified. The fundamental aspect is the right which is conferred upon the affected people in a democracy to voice their grievances. Dissenters may be in minority. They have a right to express their views. A particular cause which, in the first instance, may appear to be insignificant or irrelevant may gain momentum and acceptability when it is duly voiced and debated. That is the reason that this Court has always protected the valuable right of peaceful and orderly demonstrations and protests. 13. The above view expressed by the Apex Court is apt in the present context to consider. In the instant case also, the petitioners intend to voice their grievances openly and publicly. Since it is their fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b) and 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India, they got every right to lead procession as part of their agitation or protest to ventilate their grievance. However, the petitioners have to carry on their procession peacefully and they should not resort to any violence during the process of the said procession. Therefore, by imposing reasonable restrictions to maintain public order, when for a right cause, the petitioners intend to take out the said procession, they cannot be prevented from taking out the said procession. There may be people of cross-sections who may oppose the said decision of the petitioners and it is for the police to control the law and order situation by providing adequate police protection to the petitioners while permitting them to carry on their procession peacefully. 14. There may be people of cross-sections who may oppose the said decision of the petitioners and it is for the police to control the law and order situation by providing adequate police protection to the petitioners while permitting them to carry on their procession peacefully. 14. Even in the judgment relied on by the learned Additional Advocate-General in the case of Amit Sahni (Shaheen Bagh, In Re) v. State, (2020) 10 SCC 439 , while considering the right of the citizens to protest against government action whether legislative or executive action and its scope, held that citizens have right under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India to assemble peacefully and protest against action or inaction of the State including a law which has been challenged before the Court. However, it is held that right right need to be balanced with other contrasting fundamental rights and is subject to reasonable restrictions indicated in Articles 19(2) and (3). Therefore, the mere fact that batch of Writ Petitions relating to the issue involved in the controversy is pending cannot by itself be a valid legal ground to deny permission to the petitioners to take out a procession to air their grievances. The only thing to be considered is that reasonable restrictions are to be imposed to balance the contrasting fundamental rights. 15. On the basis of certain inputs given by the Superintendents of Police of the four districts expressing their difficulty to provide protection which are now produced on record by the learned Additional Advocate-General, the right to take out procession to air the grievances of the petitioners, which are their fundamental right, cannot be defeated. In fact, it is the duty of the Superintendents of Police as the heads of the respective Units to maintain public order and control the law and order situation while the petitioners take out the said procession. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also given an under taking on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners will not use any D.J. groups during the process of the said procession while conducting the said Maha Padayatra and that they would not hold any public meetings in any villages or in any towns from Tulluru to Tirumala and that they would peacefully protest and take out the said procession. 17. 17. However, as the threat of third wave of COVID disease is looming large, the petitioners have to maintain precautionary measures of wearing masks and to sanitize themselves etc., during the said Maha Padayatra. 18. Therefore, considering the fact that right to protest and holding peaceful demonstrations and processions to voice the grievance of the petitioners is their fundamental right, as per the law enunciated in the judgments of the Apex Court discussed supra, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order of the 2nd respondent – Director General of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh, in rejecting permission to the petitioners is clearly unsustainable under law. The 2nd respondent – Director General of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh, did not take consideration that the right of the petitioners as citizens of this country to protest and to take out peaceful procession to air their grievance is their fundamental right. He ought to have accorded permission to the petitioners by imposing reasonable restrictions to maintain law and order. It is the duty of the police to take necessary precautionary measures during the said Maha Padayatra to maintain law and order and to prevent any untoward incident to happen. Police cannot abrogate the said duty stating that it would be difficult for them to provide any such protection in the four districts. Route map has been furnished by the petitioners relating to the said Maha Padayatra and the names of the participants in the said Maha Padayatra have been also furnished and on the basis of the said information furnished to the police, police can take adequate steps to provide necessary police protection during the said Maha Padayatra to see that the petitioners take out a peaceful procession during the said Maha Padayatra. The participants of the said Maha Padayatra should not use any offensive language against any person or officials or authorities at the helm of affairs. They must behave decently throughout. The petitioners are permitted to use hand mike sets during the procession. 19. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is allowed declaring the impugned order of the 2nd respondent – Director General of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh, as legally unsustainable. They must behave decently throughout. The petitioners are permitted to use hand mike sets during the procession. 19. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is allowed declaring the impugned order of the 2nd respondent – Director General of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh, as legally unsustainable. The 2nd respondent – Director General of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh, is directed to grant permission to the 1st petitioner Trust and to its members to conduct Maha Padayatra from 01.11.2021 to 17.12.2021 from Tulluru Village, Guntur District to Tirumala, Chittoor District by 5.00 P.M. tomorrow i.e. on 30.11.2021. The petitioners shall scrupulously follow the directions given above to take out a peaceful procession i.e. Maha Padayatra without resorting to commission of any acts of violence and indulging in any illegal acts. The 2nd respondent – Director General of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh, shall also take necessary steps to provide adequate police protection to the persons, who are participating in the said Maha Padayatra throughout. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.