ORDER : 1. The prayer sought for in the present writ petition is to challenge the order passed by the second respondent in C.No.72/DCP- South/Camp/MC/2025 dated 01.03.2025 and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to grant permission to the petitioner to undertake a peaceful rally culminating in the proposed public Conference meeting at Natraj Theatre on 09.03.2025 between 4.00 p,m. to 10.00 p.m., 2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner as the convener on behalf of the politician recently formed Madurai People's Coalition for Religious Harmony. In India various religions groups have different way of worship and it is the duty of the every citizen as per the constitutional mandate to respect and allow their fellow citizen to carry out and continue their religious practice and beliefs. In the light of this the Tiruparankundram Hillock in the south west of Madurai District has been a symbol of religious harmony for centuries and the Muslim communities for decades now have been involved in a practice of animal sacrifice (Kanduri) in the Sikkandar Badusha Darga in an uninterrupted manner. There have been no reported incidents of clashes and tensions in the religion due to animal sacrifice for all these years. When the people were harmoniously professing their religions for a long time now the respondent police out of blue stopped Muslims from carrying animals for sacrifice to the Darga on 25.12.2025. Following this various outfits and groups started campaigning against the Muslims that they should not continue this practice of animal sacrifice which infact is a right guaranteed under Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India . This Court already granted permission to one group to conduct gathering landed to be one in which inciteful slogans were used. Leaders from the outfits even said that the dhargas should be relocated and Tiruparankundram will be made Ayodhya of the South. In this alarming situation there arises an ultimate need to deliver a strong message to the people of this city and the State of Tamil Nadu that they are all one and communal harmony should prevail. Leaders from the outfits even said that the dhargas should be relocated and Tiruparankundram will be made Ayodhya of the South. In this alarming situation there arises an ultimate need to deliver a strong message to the people of this city and the State of Tamil Nadu that they are all one and communal harmony should prevail. Therefore in order to prevent a potentially tense situation and to preserve communal harmony of Madurai, various right based movements, individual social workers and leaders from all religious affiliations have come together and formed the Madurai People's Coalition for Religious Harmony and are undertaking various steps to preserve religious harmony and prevent communal tensions one of which among is the rally culminating in a public meeting. The petitioner has sent a representation dated 19.02.2025 but the same has not been considered. Therefore the petitioner has filed this petition before this Court on 28.02.2025 and after knowing the same the proceedings in C.No. 72/DCP-South/Camp/MC/2025 dated 01.03.2025 was issued by the second respondent by denying permission to conduct rally and conference with a reason that cases are pending before High Court, traffic congestion and Section 41 and 41(A) of Tamil Nadu City Police Act is in force from 01.03.2025 to 16.03.2025. Infact the right to freedom of speech is a fundamental right which is guaranteed under the Constitution of India and the respondent police cannot deny that. Time and again the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court granted permission to conduct meeting but the respondent police erroneously rejected the petitioner's request. Therefore the order passed by the second respondent is liable to be set aside and permission has to be granted to the petitioner to conduct rally and public meeting at Natraj Theatre on 09.03.2025 between 4.00 p,m. to 10.00 p.m., The learned Senior Counsel also relied on the following judgements passed by this Court: (a) K. Phanindra Reddy and others vs. G. Subramanian, 2023 SCC Online SC 402 (b) M. Murugan vs. The District Collector and others, W.P. (MD) Nos. 3363/3364/3374 of 2025 3. 3363/3364/3374 of 2025 3. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner has sent a representation to the respondents to conduct rally and public meeting at Natraj Theatre on 09.03.2025 between 4.00 p,m. to 10.00 p.m., and they passed order that as per the requisition they decided to conduct meeting in the Tiruparankundram area where two religious people claiming right over their temple, the place selected by the petitioner is also a busy area and rally cannot be conducted and already tension prevailing over locality and if the meeting is conducted it will create law and order issue between two sects of people therefore the second respondent rightly rejected the permission, considering interest of public and to ensure safety and peace to the general public. The learned Additional Advocate General relied on the following judgments of this Court. (a) S. Yuvaraj vs. The Commissioner of Police, E.V.K. Sampath Salai, Vepery, Chennai and others in W.P. No. 4732 of 2025 (b) Syed Raja vs. The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Madurai, WP (MD) No. 4634 of 2025 4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 5. In this case the petitioner has sent a representation to the respondents for conducting rally and public meeting on 09.03.2025 and the same was declined by the respondent police on the ground that already tension is prevailing in that area between two sects of people and the place fixed by the petitioner is a commercial area and it is the prime location and it will create law and order issue and cause traffic congestion and hindrance to the public. More over there will be chances for religious clash between two sects of people and already Section 41 and 41(A) of Tamil Nadu City Police Act is in force from 01.03.2025 to16.03.2025. 6. This Court perused the records. The petitioner in the affidavit in para nos.10 and 12 has stated as follows: “10. I submit that when the people were harmoniously professing their religions for a long time now, the respondent police out of the blue, stopped the Muslims from carrying animals for sacrifice to the Darga on 25.12.2025. 6. This Court perused the records. The petitioner in the affidavit in para nos.10 and 12 has stated as follows: “10. I submit that when the people were harmoniously professing their religions for a long time now, the respondent police out of the blue, stopped the Muslims from carrying animals for sacrifice to the Darga on 25.12.2025. Following, this various outfits and groups started campaigning against the Muslims that they should not continue this practice of animal sacrifice which in fact is a right guaranteed to them under Article 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution. 11... 12. I submit that in this alarming situation there arises an ulterior need to deliver a strong message to the people of this city and the state of Tamil Nadu that we are all one and communal harmony should prevail. These above events very much terrorize us that it is left free, this could lead to a very bad communal situation in this peaceful city and therefore truth needs to be told to the people”. 7. The averments made in the affidavit of the petition shows that the purpose of conducting meeting and rally is by supporting to one particular religion and already there is a tension prevailing over the locality between two sects of people. If so certainly it will induce two sects of people and create law and order issue. Though the intention of the petitioner is to create religious harmony, now considering the present situation in the locality, if permission is granted to conduct meeting certainly it will cause clash between two sects of people . Particularly the averments shows that supporting one religious people but those religious people have not created any law and order issue and they are living peacefully, while so if the rally and meeting is permitted it will pave way to create clash between two groups of religious people. More over now in Tiruparankundram temple Panguni Uthiram festival is also started with flag hoisting. At this situation if permission is granted to conduct rally and meeting by supporting one religious people it will create clash between two sects of people and also law and order issue. Already so many criminal cases have also been registered in respect of Thiruparankundram issue. At this situation if permission is granted to conduct rally and meeting by supporting one religious people it will create clash between two sects of people and also law and order issue. Already so many criminal cases have also been registered in respect of Thiruparankundram issue. Therefore the respondent police inorder to save the people and ensure security correctly declined to grant permission and therefore the order passed by the second respondent is in order and warrants no interference. 8. So far as the judgments relied on the side of the petitioner are concerned they will not be applicable to the present facts of the case because in this case now there is a tension prevailing over the locality due to some dispute between two sects of people and it is the duty to the police to ensure peace and security to the public. It is true that freedom of speech and conducting meeting is fundamental right but it is also subject to reasonable restrictions. 9. So far the judgements relied on by the learned Additional Advocate General are concerned already this Court declined to grant permission based on the situation prevailing in the locality and thereby it is not proper to grant permission at this stage. 10. The petitioner seeks permission to conduct rally on 09.03.2025 but at present considering the situation prevailing over the locality this Court declined to grant permission. 11. In the result, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. However the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate authorities for conduct of meeting outside the Madurai City. If any such request is made by the petitioner, the concerned police officials may consider the same in accordance with law.