Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Debjit Sarkar vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 10 January, 2018
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
1 UL 10.01. W.P. No.563(W) of 2018 ns 2018 Debjit Sarkar Versus State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. K. Thakkar, Mr. Brajesh Jha, Mr. Tarun Jyoti Tiwari, Mr. Rahul Sarkar, Mr. Manabendra Bandopadhyay, Mr. Partho Ghosh, Mr. Proloy Bhattacharya, Mr. Arijit Bakshi ... For the petitioner. Mr. Kishore Datta, ld. A.G., Mr. Abhrotosh Majumdar, ld. A.A.G, Mr. T. M. Siddique, Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee ... for the State.
The petitioner seeks that a letter dated January 9, 2018 refusing grant of permission to hold a proposed rally by the Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha (BJYM) be set aside.
Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner proposes to hold a motor cycle rally from different parts of the State to converge to Cooch Behar on January 18, 2018 for the purpose of protesting against the lawless situation and the illegal incidents happening in the State of West Bengal.
Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner 2 submits that the permission has been denied, on the basis of that, the proposed rally will cause disruption in the smooth of movement of the pilgrims for the Gangasagar Mela. He submits that the route proposed by the orgnisers of the rally do not converge with the Gangasagar Mela. Therefore, such a reasoning given in the impugned writing is perverse. He draws the attention of the Court to (2017) 4 West Bengal Law Reporter Page 338 (Sasanka Sekhar Dey & Ors. Versus State of West Bengal & Ors.) and submits that, on last year itself, an organisation was allowed to hold a congregation at the Maidan area during the Gangasagar Mela. The assembly of large number of pilgrims of the Gangasagar Mela did not impede the holding of such meeting last year at the Maidan area. Consequently, this year also, there should not be any impediment on the part of the State in permitting the petitioner to organise the rally as proposed.
Learned Advocate General appearing for the State assisted by the learned Additional Advocate General submits that, the writ petition at the behest of the writ petitioner is not maintainable. He draws the attention of 3 the Court to the averments made in the writ petition as also the affidavit verifying the writ petition. He submits that, the petitioner has not disclosed whether, the entity requesting permission by the writing dated January 5, 2018 to hold the rally is incorporated or not. In the event, the entity is incorporated under any provision of a statute, then, the writ petition lacks relevant averments as to the due authorization of the petitioner to file the writ petition. In the event, it is an unincorporated entity, the petitioner has also no locus to maintain the writ petition.
Referring to the impugned decision, learned Advocate General submits that, the decision gives reasons as to why the request for the permission has been turned down. The reason is plausible. It cannot be said to be perverse or something which should shock the conscience of the Court. Therefore, the Court should be slow in interfering with such decision.
Referring to the conduct of the petitioner, learned Advocate General submits that, the organisers of the rally must have conceived of the rally much prior to the request for permission dated January 5, 2018. In the event, the request for permission was made earlier, the 4 State would have been better placed to consider such request. It is always at the last moment that, the organisers come before the writ Court complaining of non-grant of permission.
Referring to the Gangasagar Mela and the quantum of administrative machineries required to be deployed for smooth holding of such Mela, he submits that, pilgrims are expected and in fact, congregate from all over India. It is the bounden duty of the State to facilitate easy movement of such huge number of pilgrims to and fro of the Gangasagar Mela. In order to facilitate the same with the minimum of hassles to the pilgrims, large deployment of administrative and police personnel takes place. In order to cater such large deployment the State Authorities are required to draw from the resources available at various districts. Consequently, the districts become depleted with the proportionate manpower being withdrawn and deployed for the Gangasagar Mela. In such a given situation, particularly when the proposed rally travels through various districts of the State to Cooch Behar, it is administrative inconvenience which prevents the State from granting permission. 5
Referring to Sansanka Sekhar Dey & Ors. (supra), learned Advocate General submits that, the fact scenario in the present case is different. In Sansanka Sekhar Dey & Ors. (supra), the meeting was for one day at a designated place. In the present case, the procession would be over various districts spanning over a period of time. Deployment of police and administrative personnel for such a scale is inconvenient given the Gangasagar Mela. He suggests that, the organisers may shift the date beyond January 26, 2018 when it will be possible for the police and the administration to extend the facilities.
Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner in reply submits that, the application for grant of permission was made by the petitioner itself. The authorities have clarity as to the persons seeking the permission. He refers to the impugned letter which is addressed to the petitioner as also the writing in the impugned letter where a copy of the rejection is addressed to the President of a political party. He submits that, the petition may be criticized by stating that, an additional paragraph showing the authority to 6 file the petition could have been there as a pleading but the same is not fatal to the maintainability of the writ petition. The writ petitioner is otherwise maintainable. The reason given in the impugned order does not withstand judicial scrutiny. He seeks to rely upon newspaper reports which suggest that, the State and the ruling party are holding rallies on January 12, 2018 all over the State. Therefore, the plea of lack of infrastructure and police personnel is specious.
In response learned Advocate General submits that, the State is not permitting any additional rally or function to be held other than those traditionally held on January 12, 2018.
I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record.
The right to hold rallies by a political party cannot be denied. The right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions. The State should not discriminate while considering the application for grant of permission. Administrative inconvenience should yield to the rule of law.
In the present case, the petitioner seeks to hold a rally which will travel from various parts of the State to 7 Cooch Behar for the period from January 11, 2018 till January 18, 2018. The Gangasagar Mela also coincides during this period of time. The administrative inconvenience, however, cannot stand in the way of the application of the Rule of Law. If, the request of the petitioner is to be considered strictly on the principle that, there should not be any discrimination, then, the State authorities will have to find adequate resources to meet the exigencies. In the present case, the holding of the Gangasagar Mela has been cited as a reason for the purpose of refusal of the grant of permission. Gangasagar Mela is held at a particular locality. However, pilgrims all over the country including the State congregates at such place, the State administration no doubt has to make necessary arrangements for unhindered movement of pilgrims from various parts of the country including the State. Obviously, the movement of traffic, men and material of such scale requires deployment of additional resources. It is a recurring event every year. The administration addresses the same every year. In the present year, there is a request by the petitioner to hold a rally which coincides with the period of the Gangasagar Mela. The route 8 proposed does not show that, it will congregate at the locate for the Gangasagar Mela. The routes are different to that where the pilgrims are likely to take to reach the Gangasagar Mela. There may be slight overlapping of routes at different locations but the same are not to such an extent where it would be of such administrative inconvenience for the State to deny permission to hold the rally.
The issue of maintainability is also required to be addressed. The writ petitioner is an individual. In the writ petition, the petitioner claims himself to be the President of BJYM, a unit of a political party. It is true that, the writ petition may have been better drafted with necessary averments to establish the right of the writ petitioner to file the writ petition to espouse the cause of BJYM. But the same, to my view, in the facts of the present case, is not fatal to the maintainability of the writ petition. The writ petitioner had applied for the permission. The authorities had corresponded with the petitioner with regard to the grant of the permission. Therefore, to hold that writ petition as not maintainable as the writ petitioner does not disclose the due authority of BJYM to file the writ petition on behalf of the BJYM is 9 not warranted. That would be taking a very harsh view, in the present factual matrix.
Sansanka Sekhar Dey & Ors. (supra) considers the refusal of grant of permission to hold a congregation at the Maidan area during the period of Gangasagar Mela. It is of the view that, the apprehension expressed in the letter of rejection is general and omnibus in nature. The same should not detain the non- grant of a permission. It went ahead and granted permission to hold the rally at the Maidan area. Applying such ratio to the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to permit the petitioner to hold the rally as prayed for.
Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that, the rally will be conducted in an orderly fashion. The rally will not impede the movement of vehicular traffic in any manner whatsoever. The organisers will inform the police authorities every district through which the rally proceeds about the commencement of the same at least 30 minutes before the commencement of the rally and at least 30 minutes before the arrival of the rally to a particular district. The organisers will keep a liaison 10 with the local police authorities of every police station of every district through which the rally proceeds appropriately so as to facilitate the holding of the rally smoothly. The organisers and the participants of the rally will cooperate with the district administration in every manner possible. The rally will be held in consonance with the rules and regulations governing and regulating traffic. It will abide by every just direction issued by the State administration from time to time.
WP No.563(W) of 2018 is disposed of.
No order as to costs.
Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State prays for stay of the judgment and order. In view of the rally being scheduled to commence from January 11, 2018, such prayer is considered and refused.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.
( Debangsu Basak, J. )