ORDER : The Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus declaring the order, dated 10.12.2021, passed by the 5th respondent – Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Urban Police District, Tirupathi, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and violative of Article 19(1)(a) and (1)(b) of the Constitution of India and consequently sought direction to the respondent – police to grant permission to the 1st petitioner – Trust to conduct public meeting on 17.12.2021 in an open place in an extent of Ac.7.50 cents covered by Sy.No.212/17 of Daminedu Village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Chittoor District. 2. The factual matrix of the Writ Petition may be stated as follows: 3. The 1st petitioner – the Amaravathi Parirakshna Samithi of Andhra Pradesh is a public charitable trust established under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, with the primary objective to protect and promote the brand image of ‘Amaravati’ the Capital City of Andhra Pradesh and also the entire State of Andhra Pradesh and to protect and work for the interest of the farmers, who have given their lands to establish the capital for the State of Andhra Pradesh at ‘Amaravati’ under the Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority Act, 2014 (hereinafter called as ‘CRDA Act’), and the Andhra Pradesh Capital City Land Pooling Scheme (Formulation & Implementation) Rules, 2015. It is stated that the 1st petitioner - Trust passed a resolution, dated 01.12.2021, to conduct public meeting in the land covered by Sy.No.212/17 in an extent of Ac.7.50 cents at Daminedu Village, Tirupathi, Chittoor District, on 17.12.2021 and a representation, dated 03.12.2021, was submitted for the said purpose seeking permission to conduct the said public meeting, to the 2nd respondent – the Director General of Police and the 3rd respondent – The Superintendent of Police, Chittoor District. One Sri A. Vinod Kumar Reddy, owner of the aforesaid land has permitted the petitioner - Trust to hold the said meeting in his land and he has also given letter in writing, dated 01.12.2021, to that effect. However, the 4th respondent – Additional Superintendent of Police, Law & Order, Tirupathi Urban, sought clarification for considering the said request of the petitioner and an explanation was submitted to that effect. But the 5th respondent – Sub-Divisional Police Officer, by the impugned order, dated 10.12.2021, has rejected the request made by the petitioner to accord permission to hold public meeting in the above place. But the 5th respondent – Sub-Divisional Police Officer, by the impugned order, dated 10.12.2021, has rejected the request made by the petitioner to accord permission to hold public meeting in the above place. The permission was rejected on the grounds that 1) There are floods in Tirupathi Town recently on account of which all the roads are damaged. (2) As per intelligence inputs, law and order problem may arise, if permission is accorded to hold such public meeting. (3) As Tirupathi is a pilgrimage place that there is every possibility for spread of COVID disease if public meeting is held with huge gathering. (4) During Mahapadayatra which has taken place recently that some members of the petitioner - Trust have violated COVID norms. (5) Other rival groups, who are supporting the policy of the Government to have three capitals, are also proposing to hold public meeting and as it may create law and order problem that permission was rejected to them earlier. 4. Therefore, aggrieved by the impugned order of rejecting permission to the petitioner to hold public meeting as sought for, the present Writ Petition has been filed for mandamus declaring the said order, dated 10.12.2021, whereby permission was rejected to hold public meeting as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and violative of Article 19(1)(a) and (1)(b) of the Constitution of India and consequently sought direction to the respondent - police to grant permission to the 1st petitioner – Trust to conduct public meeting on 17.12.2021 between 02.00 P.M., to 07.00 P.M., in an open place at Tirupathi. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents 1 to 5 – police officials. 6. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents 1 to 5 – police officials. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that aggrieved by the policy decision of the Government to establish three capitals for the State of Andhra Pradesh contrary to the decision taken by the erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh to establish the capital city for the State of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, the petitioner – Trust was established to agitate against the said decision of the present Government as many farmers, who have given their lands for the purpose of establishing the said capital city of Amaravati, are put to severe loss on account of the said policy decision of the present Government and to air their voice and to ventilate their grievances in this regard that they have conducted a Mahapadayatra as per the permission granted by this Court in Writ Petition No.25154 of 2021, from 01.11.2021 to 17.12.2021 and on the last day of their padayatra that they intend to hold public meeting at the terminal point of their padayatra in Tirupathi. He would submit that by way of holding the said public meeting that the members of the petitioner – Trust intend to air their voice and ventilate their grievances more effectively to attract the attention of the authorities at the helm of the affairs of the Government. He would submit that right to assemble peacefully and to express their views and to hold public meeting for the said purpose is a fundamental right guaranteed to the members of the petitioner – Trust under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India and the said right cannot be infringed or usurped by the respondent – police officials on the ground that there is a possibility of creating law and order problem on account of holding such public meeting. He would submit that if the police apprehend that law and order problem may arise if any such public meeting is held that the police got every right and power to impose reasonable restrictions to regulate the same, but they cannot reject permission to hold public meeting on the said ground. He would submit that if the police apprehend that law and order problem may arise if any such public meeting is held that the police got every right and power to impose reasonable restrictions to regulate the same, but they cannot reject permission to hold public meeting on the said ground. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners would pray to allow the Writ Petition and direct the respondent – police officials to accord permission to the members of the petitioner – Trust to hold public meeting on 17.12.2021. 7. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General Sri P. Sudhakar Reddy while strongly opposing the Writ Petition, would submit that Mahapadayatra was conducted by the members of the petitioner – Trust, after permission to that effect was rejected by the police, by virtue of the orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.25154 of 2021. He would submit that this Court has directed the petitioners to conduct Mahapadayatra peacefully without resorting to any violence and without making any comments or using abusive language against the authorities at the helm of affairs of the Government or any public officer. He would submit that the members of the petitioner – Trust have violated the said directions and they have indulged in acts of violence and Padyatra did not take place peacefully. To substantiate his contention, learned Additional Advocate General has displayed video clippings in the open Court to show that the petitioners have indulged in some unlawful activities in violation of the direction given by this Court and he has also placed photographs before this Court to show that there is violation of direction given by the Court during Mahapadayatra. He would then contend that there is another rival group from Rayalaseema region who are supporting the decision of the Government to have three capitals for the State of Andhra Pradesh and that they have earlier applied for permission to hold public meeting in Tirupathi and as there is a possibility of creating law and order problem on account of such public meeting by rival groups that the permission was already rejected to them by the police and if any such permission is given now to the petitioner – Trust, there is every likelihood of committing breach of public peace and tranquility and a serious law and order problem would arise. Learned Additional Advocate General further submits that clause (2) and (3) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India empowers the police and the Government to take appropriate steps to reject permission to control the situation when there is likelihood of committing breach of public peace or tranquility on account of holding any such public meetings and to protect the law and order in the area. Therefore, he would submit that in exercise of the said power conferred on the police officials under Article 19(2) and (3) of the Constitution of India that permission was rejected to the petitioner – Trust and the same is legally sustainable. Therefore, learned Additional Advocate General would pray for dismissal of the Writ Petition. Background facts:- 8. After the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated into two states of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh and the present new State of Andhra Pradesh is carved out with effect from 02.06.2014, the then Government of Andhra Pradesh has brought into existence the AP CRDA Act with a proposal to build a capital city for the State of Andhra Pradesh popularly known as ‘Amaravati’ between Krishna District and Guntur District. A scheme called as ‘land pooling scheme’ was also introduced under the aforesaid Act whereby lands of various farmers were taken by the Government for the purpose of building the said capital city i.e., Amaravati. The present Government came into power in the State of Andhra Pradesh in the general assembly elections held in the year 2019. The present Government has taken a policy decision to trifurcate the capital and establish three capitals for the State of Andhra Pradesh namely the Legislative capital in Vijayawada, Executive capital in Visakhapatnam and Judicial capital in Kurnool. The members of the petitioner – Trust, who are the farmers who have given their lands for the purpose of building capital city at Amaravati, were aggrieved by the said decision of the present Government. Therefore, they have been agitating against the said policy for the last several days. As part of their agitation, they have taken up a Mahapadayatra from Guntur District to Tirupathi to ventilate their grievance. The said Padayatra is going to come to an end on 17.12.2021 at the terminal point in Tirupathi. Therefore, they have been agitating against the said policy for the last several days. As part of their agitation, they have taken up a Mahapadayatra from Guntur District to Tirupathi to ventilate their grievance. The said Padayatra is going to come to an end on 17.12.2021 at the terminal point in Tirupathi. When the Director General of Police for the State of Andhra Pradesh has rejected the permission to conduct the said Mahapadayatra, the petitioners approached this Court by way of filing Writ Petition No.25154 of 2021 with a plea that right to move in any part of the country and right to agitate against any decision of the Government is the fundamental right of the petitioners guaranteed to them as citizens of this country under Article 19(c) and 19(d) of the Constitution of India. This Court has directed the Director General of Police and other concerned police officials to accord permission to the members of the petitioner – Trust to conduct the said Mahapadayatra by imposing reasonable restrictions to prevent any law and order problem. Accordingly, permission was granted to them and they have conducted the said Mahapadayatra as per the said permission. 9. Now, the members of the petitioner – Trust intend to hold a public meeting at the terminal point of their padayatra near Tirupathi to air their voice and to ventilate their grievance more effectively to attract the attention of the authorities at the helm of the affairs of the administration of the State and other officials. Therefore, they have applied for permission to the 2nd respondent – the Director General of Police and the 3rd respondent – Superintendent of Police. Certain information has been called for to consider the said application by the 4th respondent – Additional Superintendent of Police and the petitioners have furnished the said information. However, after considering the same, the 5th respondent – Sub-Divisional Police Officer has, by the impugned order, rejected the permission to the members of the petitioner- Trust to hold public meeting. The said permission was rejected primarily on the following grounds that: (1) there are floods recently in Tirupathi Town and all the roads are damaged during the said floods. (2) as per the intelligence inputs that there is a possibility of arising law and order problem, if any such permission is granted to hold public meeting. The said permission was rejected primarily on the following grounds that: (1) there are floods recently in Tirupathi Town and all the roads are damaged during the said floods. (2) as per the intelligence inputs that there is a possibility of arising law and order problem, if any such permission is granted to hold public meeting. (3) Tirupathi is a pilgrimage town and as such there is possibility of spread of COVID disease on account of huge public gathering at the time of public meeting. (4) During Mahapadayatra, the petitioners have violated COVID norms and also the directions given by this Court in the Writ Petition. (5) There is a rival group in Rayalaseema region, who is supporting the policy decision of the Government to have three capitals and if any permission is given to the petitioner - Trust to conduct any such public meeting, there is a possibility of arising law and order problem. Decision of the Court:- 10. Now, in this context, it is relevant to note that Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech and expression to the citizens of this country and Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India guarantees right to assemble peacefully and without arms, to the citizens of this country. They are the fundamental rights conferred on citizens of this country under the Constitution of India. Thus, the members of the petitioner – Trust, as citizens of this country, got a fundamental right to assemble peacefully and to express their views to ventilate their grievances and to air their voice relating to their grievances. This right to assemble peacefully and right to speech and expression put together includes the right to hold public meeting to ventilate their grievances and to air their voice relating to their grievances. The legal position in this regard is not res nova and the same has been well settled. There is long line of judicial precedents rendered in plethora of judgments on this aspect. The constitutional bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, (1973) 1 SCC 227 had an occasion to deal with the said legal position. At Para 32 and 33 of the judgment, it is held as follows: “32. This takes us to points, (2) and (3) mentioned above. The constitutional bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, (1973) 1 SCC 227 had an occasion to deal with the said legal position. At Para 32 and 33 of the judgment, it is held as follows: “32. This takes us to points, (2) and (3) mentioned above. It is not surprising that the Constitution-makers conferred a fundamental right on all citizens 'to assemble peaceably and without arms'. While prior to the coming into force of the Constitution the right to assemble could have been abridged or taken away by law, now that cannot be done except by imposing reasonable restrictions within Article 19(3). But it is urged that the right to assemble does not mean that that right can be exercised at any and every place. This Court held in Railway, Board v. Narinjan Singh, that there is no fundamental right for any one to hold meetings in government premises. It was observed "The fact that the citizens of this country have freedom of speech, freedom to assemble peaceably and freedom to form associations or unions does not mean that they can exercise those freedoms in whatever place they please." 33. This is true but nevertheless 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.” Again, at para No.70, the Apex Court held as follows: “Public meeting in open spaces and public streets forms part of the tradition of our national life. In the pre-Independence days such meetings have been held in open spaces and public streets and the people have come to regard it as a part of their privileges and immunities”. 11. In the case of Ramlila Maidan Incident, In re, (2012) 5 SCC 1 , it is held that the right to assembly and peaceful agitations were basic features of a democratic system and the Government should encourage exercising of these rights. At para No.245, it is held as follows: “Freedom of speech, right to assemble and demonstrate by holding dharnas and peaceful agitations are the basic features of a democratic system. At para No.245, it is held as follows: “Freedom of speech, right to assemble and demonstrate by holding dharnas and peaceful agitations are the basic features of a democratic system. The people of a democratic country like ours have a right to raise their voice against the decisions and actions of the Government or even to express their resentment over the actions of the Government on any subject of social or national importance. The Government has to respect and, in fact, encourage exercise of such rights.” 12. In Anita Thakur v. Govt. of J & K, (2016) 15 SCC 525 case, the Apex Court held that right to peaceful protest was a fundamental right under Articles 19(1), (b) and (c) of the Constitution, subject to reasonable restrictions. 13. The Apex Court in the case of Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. the Union of India, AIR 2018 SC 3476 : 2018 (10) SCJ 685 while considering the above two judgments held that on account of principle of primacy i.e., primacy of public interest or individual interest, there is need to devise a proper mechanism for limited use of the area for peaceful protests and for regulation of demonstrations. When there is a conflict of interest between the residents of Jantar Mantar area in New Delhi facing discomforts and difficulties owing to demonstration etc., and of those wanting to protest at the same place, to strike a balance between the interest of the said two groups, in a way, the Court while dealing with Articles 19(1)(a) and (1)(b), which is a fundamental right of citizens of India to assemble peacefully and to express their views, held that it requires to devise a proper mechanism for limited use of the area for peaceful protests for regulation of demonstrations. 14. The erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Mechineni Kishan Rao vs Commissioner Of Police, Hyderabad, 2002 SCC OnLine AP 522 held as follows: “It must be taken as well settled that the power of the State to regulate the exercise of right of assembly at public places must be exercised to aid the enjoyment of right of assembly subject to condition that there can be reasonable restrictions in public interest.” and ultimately held that the petitioners being citizens of the country are entitled to hold public meeting at Nizam College grounds. 15. 15. In another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Madiga Reservation Porata Samithi V. The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, 1999 SCC OnLine AP 152 held as follows: “19. To a pointed question whether any such procession consisting of about 3 lakhs of people, was ever permitted or took place in the City of Hyderabad, the learned Advocate-General fairly answered saying that earlier on several occasions, such processions did take place and permissions were accorded and such processions were organised by various political parties and some social and religious organisations like Ganesh Utsavam Committee of Hyderabad etc. 20. As a matter of fact such processions took place earlier and the State permitted such processions. The respondent could successfully supervise and regulate such processions and meetings without there being any disturbance to the public order, it is not open to the respondent to now say that the congregation of about 3 lakhs of people now would disturb the peace and public order.” 16. The above observations of the Apex Court squarely apply to the present facts of the case also. It is not disputed before this Court that several such public meetings were earlier organized in Tirupathi both by various political parties and other organizations. Similarly, permissions were admittedly granted to the said political parties and other organizations to hold public meetings in Tirupathi despite the fact that there is a possibility of disturbance of public order, public peace and tranquility. Certain safeguards were taken by the police to prevent breach of public peace and tranquility and public order. Therefore, when permissions were earlier accorded to various political parties and other organizations to hold meetings in Tirupathi, the respondent – police officials are not justified in rejecting the permission to the petitioner – Trust herein to hold any such public meeting on the ground that there is a possibility of breach of public peace, if such permission is accorded. This Court does not find any justification in the said contention of the respondents. In fact, in this regard, it is apt to consider the observation of the Madras High Court also in this context, made in the case of Arappor Iyakkam Vs. State of T.N, 2017 SCC OnLine Mad 5785 at para Nos.7 and 8. It is held as follows: “7. In fact, in this regard, it is apt to consider the observation of the Madras High Court also in this context, made in the case of Arappor Iyakkam Vs. State of T.N, 2017 SCC OnLine Mad 5785 at para Nos.7 and 8. It is held as follows: “7. The legal proposition that Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India guarantees every citizen, the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression and Article 19(1)(b) confers the right to assemble peacefully and without arms is well established and not in dispute. In the present case, the apprehension of the respondents is that they have some reliable information that the petitioner was attempting to instigate people and create law and order problems under the guise of conducting the meeting and further, that anti social elements may take advantage of the situation and indulge in anti social activities. In other words, the petitioner's request has been rejected on two grounds namely, (a) the petitioner intends to instigate people for creating law and order problems and (b) there is likelihood of law and order problem from anti social elements. 8. I do not endorse the reasoning of the respondents for rejecting the petitioner's request for the simple reason that the police department has been created only for the purpose of tackling the above problems. Since it is the fundamental right of the petitioner to conduct such a meeting, if at all, the respondent is of the view that they intend to instigate people and thereby create law and order problem, it was always open to them to permit the petitioner to conduct the meeting by imposing conditions.” 17. Therefore, as per the dictum laid down in the aforesaid judgment, the respondent – police officials cannot shun their responsibility to provide proper police protection/bandhobust to regulate the meeting/demonstration. They cannot reject permission to the petitioners to hold public meeting on the ground that there is a possibility of creating a law and order problem on account of holding such public meeting. At best, they can only impose conditions to regulate the demonstration. 18. Therefore, none of the grounds on which the respondent – police officials rejected the request of the petitioners to hold public meeting is legally sustainable. At best, they can only impose conditions to regulate the demonstration. 18. Therefore, none of the grounds on which the respondent – police officials rejected the request of the petitioners to hold public meeting is legally sustainable. The respondent – police officials ought to have accorded permission to the petitioners to hold public meeting to ventilate their grievances and to air their voice by imposing certain restrictions and by taking certain precautions to prevent any such possible breach of public peace or tranquility or the law and order problem that may arise as apprehended by them. Further, simply because that there is rival group, who is supporting the policy decision of the Government to have three capitals in the State and that permission to them to hold public meeting was earlier rejected, cannot be a valid ground to reject permission to the petitioners herein to hold a public meeting in exercise of their fundamental right guaranteed to them under Article 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India. In fact, the decision taken by the respondent – police officials in rejecting the permission to the petitioners to hold public meeting to express their views by assembling peacefully in the proposed public meeting, have the effect of violating their fundamental right guaranteed to them under Article 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India and also amounts to usurping the fundamental right itself what is guaranteed to the petitioners as citizens of this country. 19. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid discussion and the precedential guidance which we have on the point as per the law enunciated in the judgments cited supra, the impugned order rejecting permission to the petitioner – Trust to hold public meeting is clearly unsustainable under law. 20. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed declaring that the order passed rejecting permission by the 4th respondent to hold public meeting by the petitioner – Trust as illegal and unconstitutional. Consequently the 2nd respondent – Superintendent of Police is directed to accord permission to the petitioner - Trust and its members to hold public meeting on 17.12.2021 from 01.00 P.M., to 06.00 P.M., by 05.00 P.M. tomorrow i.e., on 16.12.2021, in the place where they proposed to have public meeting, which is a private place. Consequently the 2nd respondent – Superintendent of Police is directed to accord permission to the petitioner - Trust and its members to hold public meeting on 17.12.2021 from 01.00 P.M., to 06.00 P.M., by 05.00 P.M. tomorrow i.e., on 16.12.2021, in the place where they proposed to have public meeting, which is a private place. However, the respondent – police officials may impose reasonable restrictions and conditions to prevent any breach of public peace or tranquility and to maintain law and order while granting such permission to hold public meeting. The restrictions or conditions that may be imposed should be reasonable and it should not be unreasonable, which may fizzle out the very purpose of holding public meeting by the members of the petitioner – Trust. The members of the petitioner – Trust shall not use any abusive or offending language against the authorities at the helm of affairs in the administration of the State or any officials and they should not make any provocative speeches. They shall confine themselves during the course of their speeches in the said public meeting only to ventilate their grievances and air their voice relating to their grievances. They shall adhere to Covid-19 protocols. The members of the petitioner – Trust shall scrupulously adhere to the above directions of this Court. No costs. 21. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Writ Petition, shall stand closed.