Madras High Court
P.Pugalenthi vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 26 March, 2012
Bench: M.Y.Eqbal, T.S.Sivagnanam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26..03..2012
CORAM
THE HONBLE Mr.M.Y.EQBAL, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
THE HONBLE Mr.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
W.P.Nos.7520, 7633 & 7634 of 2012
------------
W.P.No.7520 of 2012
P.Pugalenthi ..Petitioner.
Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu
rep. by the Chief Secretary to Government
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2. The District Collector,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli. ..Respondents.
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of declaration that the action of the respondent No.2 of clamping an order under Section 144 Cr.P.C. on the entire Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District, which is in force till April 2, 2012 is null and void.
--------------
W.P.No.7633 of 2012
S.Jimraj Milton ..Petitioner.
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by the Chief Secretary
Fort St.George, , Chennai 600 009.
2.The Department of Home
rep. by its Secretary
Government of Tamil Nadu
Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.
3.The District Collector/District Magistrate,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
4.The Superintendent Police
Thirunelveli District,
Thirunelveli.
5.District Superintendent of Police
Valliyur Range, Thirunelveli. ..Respondents.
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of declaration that the order of proclamation of exigency by the 3rd respondent on 19.3.2012 under section 144 of Cr.P.C. for a period there from till 2.4.2012, as notified by the press release of the 3rd respondent to media as published in "Indian Express" dated 20.3.2012 as unconstitutional, and Null and void.
--------------
W.P.No.7634 of 2012
Dr.V.Suresh ..Petitioner.
Vs.
1.The Chief Secretary
Government of Tamil Nadu
Fort st.George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Director General of Police
Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 004.
3.The Principal Secretary, Home
Government of Tamil Nadu
Fort st.George, Chennai 600 009.
4. District Collector,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
5.The Superintendent Police
Thirunelveli District,
Thirunelveli.
6.Commanding Officer
Indian Coast Guard, Tamil Nadu
Chennai. ..Respondents.
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of declaration that the orders issued u/s 144 Cr.P.C. on 19.3.2012 by the V respondent and the police blockade of Idinthakarai Village, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli as illegal and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to restore normalcy to the Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli and in particular Idinthikarai.
--------------
Mr.M.Radhakrishnan :: For Petitioner in W.P.No.7520/2012
Ms.R.Vaigai for :: For Petitioner in W.P.No.7633/2012
Mr.P.G.Thiyagu
Mr.N.G.R.Prasad :: For Petitioner in W.P.No.7634/2012
Mr.A.Navaneethakrishnan :: For Respondents in all the W.Ps.
Advocate General assisted by
Mr.S.Venkatesh G.P
Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan AGP
Mr.M.Ravindran Addl Solicitor General
assisted by Mr.B.Manoharan CGSC
----------------
C O M M O N O R D E R
The Honble Chief Justice & T.S.Sivagnanam, J.
-------------------------------------
These writ petitions designed as 'Public interest litigation' have been filed, praying for issuance of a writ of Declaration, declaring the action of the respondent, namely, the District Collector, Tirunelveli District, clamping an order under Section 144 CrPC, on the entire Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District from 3.00 p.m of 19.03.2012 till 3.00 p.m of 02.04.2012 as being null and void and for a consequential direction to restore normalcy to the Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District and in particular Idinthakarai.
2. The petitioners have stated that "The Hindu" dated 20.03.2012, reported that a Prohibitory Order under Section 144 CrPC was clamped on Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District and the Taluk comprises of about 50 villages and by virtue of such order, the people residing in those villages have been virtually under house arrest and therefore, a direction has been sought for immediately to lift the Prohibitory Order passed under Section 144 CrPC and allow the people of Radhapuram Taluk to move freely.
3. Mr.M.Radhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submitted that the District Collector in the guise of exercising his power for maintaining public peace and tranquillity, deprived the people of Radhapuram Taluk of their basic and fundamental right to move freely from one place to another. Further, it is submitted that no material whatsoever was disclosed explaining the necessity of imposing this unreasonable restriction. There is no reason whatsoever, why a Prohibitory Order should be passed for the entire Taluk. The learned counsel after referring to Section 144 CrPC, submitted that none of the grounds mentioned under Sub-Section (1) Section 144 have been satisfied and no material has been placed before the District Collector to arrive at such satisfaction and no untoward incident has been reported in the past eight months when protests have been going on against the commissioning of the Atomic Power Plant at Koodankulam and the order has been promulgated on the same evening after the Cabinet of the State Government took a decision . It is further submitted that the procedure contemplated under Section 134 CrPC as regards service or notification of the order has not been followed and the order passed under Section 144 CrPC has not been made available to the people and has not been affixed in the area and therefore, there is a serious procedural violation which itself would be sufficient to revoke the order. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye vs. S.D.M.Monghyr, AIR 1971 SC 2486 and submitted that for action under Section 144 CrPC, there should be urgency of the situation and the emergency must be sudden and the consequences sufficiently grave and it is submitted that all these aspects are not present warranting passing of the impugned order. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Gulam Abbas vs. State of U.P., AIR 1981 SC 2198, and submitted that the power under Section 144 CrPC is intended for preventing disorders, obstructions etc., and such power is conferred on the Executive Magistrate to perform the function effectively during emergency situation and there is no such emergency situation in Radhapuram Taluk warranting promulgation of an order under Section 144 CrPC.
4. Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel for the other writ petitioner submitted that the place where the protest is being held, is situated about 15 k.ms. away from the Atomic Plant and there is no reason as to why the entire village should be barricaded and the people of the area have been deprived of the essential commodities such as milk, water, electricity and the children are unable to commute to the School to attend the examination, since public transport has been cut off. It is further submitted that any order under Section 144 CrPC is subject to Article 19 & 21 of the Constitution and by virtue of the impugned order, the fundamental rights of the people of Idinthakarai, have been violated.
5. Ms.R.Vaigai, learned counsel appearing for the other writ petitioner submitted that in the impugned order, there is no mention of immediate threat, no mention of any threat to the Atomic Plant and no details have been given as to why immediate action is required. It is further submitted that the District Collector is aware that no untoward incident had occurred and therefore, could not have passed an order under Section 144 CrPC. It is further submitted that the impugned order is not available in public domain and none of the activists have been served with the order and the order cannot prevent any political party from entering the Taluk or prevent any activist from entering the Taluk. It is further submitted that the impugned order is solely based on presumption and hence, illegal. The learned counsel placed reliance on the recent decision of the Supreme Court in In Re-Ramlila Maidan Incident vs. Home Secretary, Union of India and others, 2012 (2) SCALE 628 and drawn our attention paragraphs to the relevant of the judgment.
6. Mr.A.Navaneethakrishnan, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents submitted that the order is against persons, who are dangerous to maintaining tranquillity and peace in Radhapuram Taluk and only those who are protesting or prevented from entering the Taluk and it is incorrect to state that entire Radhapuram Taluk has been cordoned off and the Prohibitory order is only against those persons entering the Taluk and opposing commissioning of the Plant and instigating agitation against the Atomic Plant and there is no restriction for any other person to enter the Taluk. It is further submitted that the allegation that essential commodities have not been supplied, is a false statement and in this regard, the District Collector, Tirunelveli has issued an official press release, clarifying all issues. It is further submitted that the impugned order being a specific order passed against anti-social elements, the same cannot be challenged in a public interest litigation and these writ petitions are not maintainable. Further, it is submitted that the impugned order is only a temporary order for 15 days and preventive in nature and if any person is aggrieved by such order, remedy has been provided under Section 144 (5) or 144 (6) CrPC and the same cannot be questioned in a Public Interest Litigation. It is further submitted that the people living inside Radhapuram Taluk, are not affected and it is to prevent anti-social elements from entering the Taluk with a view to instigate the agitation and such other activities, which would be dangerous and cause disturbance of public tranquillity.
7. Mr.M.Ravindran, learned Additional Solicitor General, submitted that the Prohibitory order is to prevent untoward incident and preserve peace and there are two sets of people, namely, a minuscule set of people opposing the Atomic Power Plant and a larger section of people who are spread over the State, who are demanding the functioning of the Power Plant and these larger group, should be prevented from entering into the Taluk as it may cause serious law and order problems. The learned Additional Solicitor General placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs. Dr. Praveen Bhai Thogadia, (2004) 4 SCC 684 and submitted that Court should not normally interfere in matters relating to law and order and it should be left to the administrative authorities to assess and handle the situation. It is further submitted that there is a great concern, since unknown persons are entering into the area through the sea route.
8. In reply Ms.R.Vaigai, the learned counsel submitted that the test laid down in Section 144 CrPC is not mere likelihood, but the Magistrate must be satisfied that immediate prevention of particular acts is necessary. In this regard, reference was made to paragraph 47 of the judgment in the case of In Re-Ramlila Maidan, referred supra.
9. We have elaborately heard the learned counsels appearing for the writ petitioners, the learned Advocate General for the State and the learned Additional Solicitor General for the Central Government.
10. On 22.03.2012, when we heard the writ petitions, after taking note of the submissions of the learned counsels that the allegations that essential supplies have been cut off to the people in the Taluk and after hearing the learned Advocate General, we passed the following interim direction:-
We have heard Mr.M.Radhakrishnan, Mr.N.G.R.Prasad and Ms.R.Vaiagai, learned counsel appearing for the respective writ petitioners, and Mr.A.Navaneethakrishnan, learned Advocate General appearing for the State and Mr.M.Ravindran, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Central Government.
2. These writ petitions, styled as public interest litigations, concern the order passed under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Radhapuram Taluk of Tirunelveli District. The main grievance expressed by the learned counsel appearing for the respective writ petitioners is that the people of the Radhapuram Taluk have not been able to move freely and essential supplies such as water, milk and electricity have been denied and further transport facilities have been cut off, and therefore, immediate directions should be issued to restore these essential supplies. It is, further, stated that at present, Plus Two examinations are going on in the State and children of the area have been prevented to attend the examinations, since public transport has been affected. We have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective writ petitioners on the other issues challenging the order passed under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Prayer has been made to suspend the operation of the said order.
3. Learned Advocate General submitted that the apprehension expressed by the learned counsel appearing for the respective writ petitioners is incorrect. Order under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been passed only as a preventive measure and it is a temporary order for about 15 days and persons living inside the Taluk are not affected. He submitted that the order has been passed only to prevent anti-social elements from entering the Taluk for creating or instigating agitations against the functioning of the Nuclear Power Plant at Kudankulam.
4. In this regard, the learned Advocate General had referred to the official press release issued by the District Collector, Tirunelveli, which has been widely published in the newspapers.
5. As per the press release furnished by the learned Advocate General, the Collector has denied media reports that supply of essential commodities to Idinthakarai, where the anti nuclear energy protesters had assembled, had been cut off. The Collector has stated that supply of milk, vegetables, water through tankers continued to the coastal village, and if at all there was any disturbance in maintaining the supply it was only because of the cutting of roads leading to Idinthakarai and creation of road blockades by the protesters. The Collector has further stated that the District administration is ready to help the villagers in maintaining supply of essential commodities and is also ready to ply additional buses for the benefit of students of Idinthakarai appearing for the Plus Two examinations.
6. The statements made by the District Collector, Tirunelveli in his official press release are placed on record. We hope and trust that these statements are effectively implemented, so that the public of the area do not suffer for want of essential commodities/supplies like water, essential food commodities, milk for the children etc. However, it is made clear that at the same time, action shall also be taken against the persons, who are indulging in blocking the roads by putting boulders and pillars, so that there shall be smooth flow of essential supplies. In view of the observations made herein above, the prayer of suspension of order does not arise.
7. Put up on 26.03.2012 for orders.
11. The issues which fall for consideration in these writ petitions are whether the respondent was justified in passing the impugned order under Section 144 Cr.P.C, whether the same satisfies the requirements under Section 144 (1) Cr.P.C and could such order be questioned by way of a public interest litigation, when persons aggrieved by such order have not questioned the same.
12. Before we proceed further, it would be necessary to take note of the order dated 19.03.2012, passed by the District Collector, Tirunelveli under Section 144(1) Cr.P.C. The order is in Tamil. The English translation of the same is quoted herein below:-
"ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE UNDER 144(1) of Cr.P.C.
Ref: Report of the District Superintendent of Police dated 19.3.2012 ***** The Tamilnadu Government passed orders for taking steps instantaneously to operate the Atomic Power Plant at Koodankulam, on the basis of the report submitted by the Experts Committee, appointed by the Central Government, regarding the Atomic Power Plant, Koodankulam, the report submitted by the Expert Committee appointed by the State Government, Since the Government came to be aware of the fact that there is no possibility for earthquake and Tsunami, after throroughly examining the petition against the Atomic Power Plant and that the Koodankulam Atomic Power Station has special safety aspects, that the sea organisms will not be affected in any manner, owing to the water discharged from this Atomic Power Station, that the sources of livelihood of the Fishermen will never be affected, that the Expert Committee appointed by the Central Government dispelled the suspicions raised by the people of that region in respect of the said plant and that since the Atomic Power Plant is a very safe one and taking into consideration that the development schemes should be carried out in such a way, that the safety of the people and the sources of livelihood of the people, should not be affected.
In consequence to the order of the Government, the works of the Atomic Power Plant have started from 19.03.2012.
Under these circumstances, prohibitory order under section 144(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, is passed for preventing the political parties, Organisations, Movements and others, from entering the limits of Radhapuram, from 3.00 p.m. on 19.03.2012 to 3.00 p.m. on 02.04.2012, which helps the 'People Movement' against Atomic energy, and to prevent the activities which will be detrimental to the tranquility of the public at Koodankulam, to restrain the aforesaid persons from preventing the persons legally employed in Koodankulam Atomic Power Plant from attending to their work, and in order to give protection to the life and belongings of the public and to prevent the occurrence of any riots and to preserve the peace and the tranquility of the public, and to prevent them from helping the agitators against the said Power plant and to restrain them from instigating the agitators.
13. From the above order, it is seen that the Government of Tamil Nadu had directed the commencement of the Atomic Power Plant at Koodankulam, after taking note of the reports submitted by the Expert Committee appointed by the Central Government and the Expert Committee appointed by the State Government, was of the opinion that there is no possibility of any danger to the people and the Expert Committee appointed by the Central Government, dispelled the apprehension and consequent upon the order of the Government, the Atomic Power Plant has started functioning from 19.03.2012. Under such circumstances, the Prohibitory order under Section 144(1) CrPC was passed for preventing political parties, organisations and others who help/assist the movement against Atomic Energy and to prevent such activity which will be detrimental to the tranquillity of the public at Koodankulam and to prevent such persons from obstructing the employees in the power plant from attending their duties and in order to give protection to life and properly of the public and with a view to prevent riots and preserve peace and tranquillity and to prevent such of those persons helping the agitators against the Power Plant and to restrain them from instigating the agitators, from entering the limits of Radhapuram Taluk from 3.00 p.m. on 19.03.2012 to 3.00 p.m on 02.04.2012.
14. In these writ petitions, we are not concerned about the establishment of the Power Plant or its functioning. The challenge to the impugned order is on the ground that it does not satisfy the requirements essential for invoking the power under Section 144(1) CrPC.
15. In the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the In Re-Ramlila Maidan, referred supra, the scope of an order made under Section 144 CrPC, has been stated. It has been held that an order passed in anticipation by the Magistrate empowered under Section 144 CrPC is not an encroachment of the freedom granted under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution and it is not regarded as an unreasonable restriction. It is an executive order, open to judicial review. It has been further held that the entire basis of an action under Section 144 is the urgency of the situation and the power therein is intended to be availed for preventing disorder, obstructions and annoyance with a view to secure the public weal by maintaining public peace and tranquillity. The decision of the Supreme Court in case of Gulam Abbas, referred supra, was referred to and stated that preservation of public peace and tranquillity is the primary function of the Government and the aforesaid power is conferred on the executive and in a given situation a private right must give in to public interest. That an order under Section 144 CrPC, though primarily empowers the executive authorities to pass Prohibitory orders vis-a-vis a particular facet, but is intended to serve large public interest. Their Lordship's further held that the legislative intention to preserve public peace and tranquillity without lapse of time, acting urgently, if warranted, giving thereby paramount importance to the social needs by even overriding temporarily, private rights, keeping in view the public interest, a patently inbuilt in the provisions under Section 144 Cr.P.C. After referring to the decision in Dr.Thogadia's case (supra), it was observed that Court should not normally interfere with matters relating to law and order which is primarily the domain of the concerned administrative authorities and they are by and large the best to assess and handle the situation depending upon the peculiar needs and necessities within their special knowledge. It has been further held that if the authority anticipates an eminent threat to public order or public tranquillity, it would be free to pass desirable directions within the para meters of reasonable restrictions on the freedom of individual and the provision is attracted only in emergent situation for the purpose of maintaining public order. The order should be in writing referring to the facts and stating the reasons for imposition of such restriction. The Supreme Court in Dr.Thogadia's case, eld that the Court was not acting as an appellate authority over the decision of the official concerned and unless the order is patently illegal, without jurisdiction or with ulterior motives and on extraneous consideration of political victimization by those in power, normally interference should be the exception and not the Rule. The Court cannot in such matters substitute its view for that of the competent authority. The basic requirements for passing an order under Section 144 were held to be as follows:-
(i) It is an executive power vested in the officer so empowered;
(ii) There must exist sufficient ground for proceeding;
(iii) Immediate prevention or speedy remedy is desirable;
(iv) An order, in writing, should be passed stating the material facts and be served the same upon the concerned person.
16. The Constitution Bench held that the gist of the action under Section 144 is the urgency of the situation, its efficacy in the likelihood of being able to prevent some harmful occurrences and it is possible to act absolutely and even ex parte, the emergency must be sudden and consequences sufficiently grave. It was further held that there is no general rule that an order under the Section cannot be passed without taking evidence. Further, it was held that the restraint imposed by the order is temporary and the aggrieved person has an opportunity to have the order rescinded and there are sufficient safeguard available to the person affected by the order and the restrictions are therefore reasonable and the mere fact that the power under the section may be abused is no ground to strike it down.
17.As noticed above, the power under Section 144 is an executive power and for exercise of such powers, there must be sufficient ground for proceeding and the next aspect would be immediate prevention or speedy remedy is desirable and the order is required to be in writing by directing any person to abstain from a certain Act or to take certain order with respect of certain property in his possession or under his management, if such Magistrate considers that such direction is likely to prevent or tends to prevent obstructions, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed or danger to human life, health or safety or a disturbance of the public tranquillity or a riot or an affray.
18. In the impugned order, the District Collector has referred to a report of the District Superintendent of Police, dated 19.03.2012. After referring to the reports submitted by the Expert Committee appointed by the Central and State Government, wherein it appears they have dispelled the fear and suspicions raised by the people of that region in respect of the Atomic Power Plant and that it is a safe one, the State Government issued directions to operate the Power Plant and consequent upon such order, the Power Plant started functioning from 19.03.2012. The District Collector has stated that under such circumstances, it would be necessary to prevent people who are helping or assisting the agitators/organizations against Atomic Power Plants from entering Radhapuram Taluk for a period of 15 days from 19.03.2012 to 02.04.2012 and in order to prevent any incident affecting public tranquillity/public interest and in order to ensure that the persons lawfully employed in the Atomic Power Plant should not be prevented from attending their duties and to ensure safety for the life and property and to prevent any sought of agitation and riots, it has been decided that the following category of persons, namely, a) the political parties who are instigating and helping the Koodankulam Atomic Power Plant protesters' movement b) other Organisations/Associations and persons who are instigating and helping the Koodankulam Atomic Power Plant protesters' movement have been prevented from entering the Radhapuram Taluk limit between 3.00 p.m on 19.03.2012 till 3.00 p.m on 02.04.2012. The contention raised by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners is that the Prohibitory order is in the nature of cordoning of entire Radhapuram Taluk and no person would be entitled to enter the Taluk and it is an unreasonable restriction offending Article 19 & 21 of the Constitution.
19. After, we have perused the Prohibitory order, we find that the contentions raised by the petitioners is devoid of any substance. The Prohibitory order is not against the entire world thereby preventing anybody from entering the boundaries of Radhapuram Taluk. The order is specific and it has categorized to sections of persons who are assisting and helping the organisation which is protesting against the Atomic Power Plant. Therefore, we are not persuaded to accept the contention that the order is a vague order thereby preventing anybody from entering the Taluk limits. We can take judicial notice of fact that for a considerable length of time agitation has been going on at Idinthakarai protesting against the Koodankulam Atomic Power Plant and it is a matter of common knowledge that recently the State Government passed an order permitting the commissioning of the Power Plant and news report in this regard were widely publicized. Therefore, in the opinion of the District Collector in order to prevent any obstruction to the functioning of the Plant or causing any annoyance or injury to the persons employed in the Plant and prevent any danger to human life and to maintain public tranquillity, the order has been passed by preventing the entry of such persons, political parties, Organizations and Associations who have been helping and supporting the group/movement which is protesting against the Koodankulam Atomic Plant. Thus, a particular identified section of the people having been restrained from entering the Taluk limit, the order has to be held to be in compliance with Section 144 (1) Cr.P.C. As held by Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye, the effect of the order being in the interest of public order and the interest of the general public, occasions may arise when it is not possible to distinguish between those whose conduct must be controlled and those whose conduct is clear.
20. The petitioners would further contend that the impugned Prohibitory order has not been made available in the public domain, copy of which was produced before this Court by the learned Advocate General. Having held that the Prohibitory order has been passed against an identifiable/identified group/political party/organisation/ association/person, it is for such aggrieved individual to seek for a copy of such order or to state that the order was not served in accordance with Section 134 Cr.P.C. Therefore, in our view the petitioners cannot be said to be persons aggrieved, so as to question the manner of service of the Prohibitory order. Likewise, the order having been passed against identified/identifiable group, such order cannot be questioned in a public interest litigation more so when the order has been passed stating the material fact and the Magistrate being satisfied that immediate prevention and speedy remedy is desirable.
21. Even assuming that the public interest litigant, is a person aggrieved, remedy is available under Sub-Section (5) of Section 144 Cr.P.C., by moving the Magistrate to rescind or alter the order or move the State Government under Sub-Section (6) of Section 144 Cr.P.C., for rescinding or altering the order passed under Sub-Section (4) of Section 144 Cr.P.C. As has been held by the Supreme Court there is a complete channel provided for examining the correctness or otherwise of such an order passed under Section 144 Cr.P.C., and preciously for this reason, the Supreme Court held that such order falls within the frame work of reasonable restriction.
22. The learned counsels for the petitioners contended that the order has caused great prejudice to the people of the locality, since supply of essential commodities were stopped and the people are suffering without water, milk, electricity and transport facilities had been withdrawn.
23. This contention was considered by us when we passed the interim order noted above. The District Collector in his official press release, had denied the media reports that the supply of essential commodities had been cut off and stated the the supply of milk, vegetable, water through tanker continued to coastal village and if at all there was any disturbance in maintaining the supply, it is only because of the cutting of roads leading to Idinthakarai and creation of road blockades by the protesters. The Collector further stated that the District Administration is ready to help the villagers in maintaining the supply of essential commodities and also to ply additional buses for the student to attend the examination. This statement was placed on record with an earnest hope that they are effectively implemented so that the public do not suffer for want of essential commodities. However, we made it clear that action should be taken against persons blocking the roads and preventing access to the area.
24. In view of the above, we hold that the impugned order is only a regulation and not a prohibition altogether for avoiding breach of peace. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned Prohibitory order passed by the Second Respondent. However, it is made clear that the District Administration shall ensure uninterrupted supply of essential commodities like milk, water and electricity etc., and bus facilities and take all steps against the persons indulging in activities like digging of the roads, blocking the roads with boulders, pillars etc., by taking action in accordance with law. It is needless to state that any person aggrieved by the impugned Prohibitory order would be at liberty to avail the remedy available under Section 144 (5) Cr.P.C., if so advised.
25. For all the above reasons, we find no merit in these writ petitions and they are dismissed subject to the observations stated above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Pbn/rpa To
1.State of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Chief Secretary to Government Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2. The District Collector/District Magistrate Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
3.The Department of Home rep. by its Secretary Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.
4.The Superintendent Police Thirunelveli District, Thirunelveli.
5.District Superintendent of Police Valliyur Range, Thirunelveli.
6.The Director General of Police Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 004.
7.The Principal Secretary, Home Government of Tamil Nadu Fort st.George, Chennai 600 009.
8.Commanding Officer Indian Coast Guard, Tamil Nadu Chennai