Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

M/S. Amaravati Parirakshana Samiti vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 9 September, 2022

Author: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy

Bench: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy

                                1
                                                                  CMR, J.
                                                      W.P.No.28377 of 2022




 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

                 Writ Petition No.28377 of 2022

ORDER:

This Writ Petition for mandamus is initially filed to declare the inaction of the respondents in not granting permission to the 1st petitioner Trust to conduct Maha Padayatra from 'Amaravati to Arasavalli' from Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Venkatapalem, Amaravati Capital City to Arasavalli, Sri Suryanarayana Swamy Temple in Srikakulam District, as per the schedule and route map furnished to the respondents, as illegal and violative of Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b) and 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India and consequently, sought direction to the respondents 2 to 18 to forthwith grant permission to the 1st petitioner Trust to conduct the said Maha Padayatra as per the route map submitted by them to the respondents.

2) The petitioners also, as per the permission accorded to the petitioners in I.A.No.2 of 2022 to amend the prayer, sought declaration that the impugned order, dated 08.09.2022, in Rc.No.1051/L&O-III/2022 passed by the 2nd respondent - Director General of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh, rejecting permission to conduct Maha Padayatra, as illegal, arbitrary and 2 CMR, J.

violative of Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b) and 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India and consequently, sought permission to the 1st petitioner Trust to conduct Maha Padayatra as per the schedule submitted by them from 12.09.2022 to 11.11.2022, by permitting the respondent police officials to regulate the said Maha Padayatra according to Section 30(3) of the Police Act, 1861 and also prayed to pass any order deemed fit in the circumstances of the case by moulding the relief if necessary in the interest of justice.

3) Facts germane to dispose of this Writ Petition may briefly be stated as follows:

(a) The 1st petitioner is a charitable trust registered in the name and style "M/s.Amaravati Parirakshna Samiti", represented by its Secretary. As per the case pleaded by the petitioners, its main object is to protect the interest of farmers, who have sacrificed their livelihood by giving their agricultural lands to the Government for establishing capital city for the newly carved out State of Andhra Pradesh under the Land Pooling Scheme carved out under Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority Act (hereinafter called as "A.P. CRDA Act") and the Rules made thereunder of 2015. It is stated that about 30,000 farmers have 3 CMR, J.

given their lands for the purpose of forming the capital city and they have also surrendered their lands to the Government for the said purpose. However, after there is a change in the administrative affairs of the State Government, a proposal was made to introduce the new concept of having three capitals for the State of Andhra Pradesh. An enactment was also brought into existence by the present Government. The farmers, who felt aggrieved by the same, have questioned the decision of the Government in abolishing the AP CRDA Act and bringing new enactment in its place to establish three capitals for the present State of Andhra Pradesh. It is alleged that some of the farmers have challenged the abolition of the AP CRDA Act in the High Court. It is further stated that the petitioners have also to air their grievance and to raise their voice to convince the authorities at the helm of the present Government to reconsider their decision that they have previously held Maha Padayatra from Amaravati to Tirupati. When a permission was rejected by the police to conduct the said Maha Padayatra that they have conducted the said Maha Padayatra as per the directions given by this Court in a writ petition filed by the 1st petitioner Trust. It is alleged that now the 1st petitioner Trust and its members intend to conduct Maha Padayatra with the farmers from Amaravati to Arasavalli to air 4 CMR, J.

their voice to ventilate their grievance from 12.09.2022 to 11.11.2022. Therefore, when a written request was made to the 2nd respondent Director General of Police and other respondents, who are Superintendents of Police of the districts through which they intend to conduct Maha Padayatra from Amaravati to Arasavalli, on 27.08.2022, that no decision is taken on their written request. Therefore, it is alleged that the petitioners have filed the instant Writ Petition seeking the aforesaid declaration and reliefs.

4) When the Writ Petition was listed for admission on 08.09.2022, learned Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, which are placed on record, submitted that the 2 nd respondent Director General of Police has obtained inputs from the Superintendents of Police of all the 16 districts i.e. respondents 3 to 18 and that he would pass orders on that day. Therefore, this Court has directed to list the matter today and directed the learned Government Pleader for Home to produce copy of the order that would be passed by the 2nd respondent Director General of Police.

5) Accordingly, the learned Government Pleader for Home as well as the petitioners have produced copy of the order dated 5 CMR, J.

08.09.2022 passed by the 2nd respondent Director General of Police. The 2nd respondent Director General of Police by the impugned order has rejected the permission to the petitioners to conduct Maha Padayatra.

6) Therefore, the petitioners have filed I.A.No.2 of 2022 today seeking amendment of the prayer in the Writ Petition to set aside the impugned order declaring the same as unconstitutional and violative of Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b) and 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India. The said I.A.No.2 of 2022 is allowed permitting the petitioners to amend the prayer of the Writ Petition as sought for.

7) Therefore, apartfrom the aforesaid reliefs claimed in the original writ petitioner, the petitioners also prayed to set aside the impugned order rejecting permission to the petitioners to conduct Maha Padayatra.

8) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents 1 to

18.

9) Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the farmers, who have sacrificed their livelihood and surrendered their 6 CMR, J.

agricultural lands for the purpose of establishing the capital city in Amaravati area in the State of Andhra Pradesh, are aggrieved by the decision taken by the present Government in introducing a new concept of establishing three capitals for the State of Andhra Pradesh giving a go-by to the earlier enactment of AP CRDA Act by abolishing the same and bringing a new enactment in its place, which is also challenged in the High Court by way of filing various Writ Petitions, whereby this Court has held in favour of the farmers and gave certain directions to the Government to take steps for immediate development of capital area by using the lands that are given by the farmers. He would submit that yet no steps are taken by the Government till now to implement the directions given by this Court in the said Writ Petitions and as such, to ventilate their grievance and to air their voice that they now intend to conduct Maha Padayatra from Amaravati to Arasavalli. He would submit that right to assemble peacefully and right to travel to any part of the country and to air their voice to ventilate their grievance is the fundamental right of the farmers and members of the 1st petitioner Trust and they are entitled for permission to conduct Maha Padayatra peacefully as per the route map submitted by them to the police and as per the schedule given by them relating to the said Maha Padayatra. 7

CMR, J.

10) Learned counsel for the petitioners would also submit that earlier when the 1st petitioner Trust intends to conduct Maha Padayatra from Amaravati to Tirupati also, the police rejected permission to them and this Court as per the order passed in W.P.No.25154 of 2021, dated 29.10.2021, accorded permission to the 1st petitioner Trust for conducting Maha Padayatra by directing the police to accord permission to them to conduct Maha Padayatra by imposing reasonable restrictions and to take care of law and order situation and the public order. He would submit that again the 2nd respondent Director General of Police rejected permission to the petitioners on the self same grounds that there is a possibility of law and order problem being arisen during the Maha Padayatra. He would submit that the grounds on which the 2nd respondent Director General of Police rejected permission to the petitioners by the impugned order are legally unsustainable and that the impugned order is not valid under law. Therefore, he would pray to set aside the impugned order and accord permission to the 1st petitioner Trust to conduct Maha Padayatra and to direct the respondent police officials to accord permission to the petitioners to conduct Maha Padayatra by imposing reasonable restrictions and conditions.

CMR, J.

11) Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents, while vehemently opposing the writ petition and by supporting the impugned order passed by the 2 nd respondent Director General of Police, would submit that eventhough the petitioners got constitutional right and fundamental right to take procession by conducting Maha Padayatra to ventilate their grievance, they cannot cause disturbance to the public order and create law and order problem. He would submit that earlier when this Court permitted the 1st petitioner Trust to conduct Maha Padayatra from Amaravati to Tirupati by imposing certain conditions and also by giving certain directions, that the members of the 1st petitioner Trust have grossly violated the said conditions imposed by this Court as well as the police in the order passed permitting them to conduct Maha Padayatra in terms of the directions given by this Court and about 71 criminal cases were also registered against the members of the 1st petitioner Trust for violating the directions of this Court and also the directions of the police and the said cases are now pending trial. Therefore, he would submit that when such is the conduct of the members of the 1st petitioner Trust, as they have previously grossly violated the conditions and directions imposed for conducting Maha Padayatra that they are now not entitled for 9 CMR, J.

permission. He would submit that taking into consideration the said previous incidents and conduct of the 1st petitioner Trust that the 2nd respondent Director General of Police has now rejected pe4rmission to the petitioners to conduct Maha Padayatra. He would also submit that as the Government intended to establish executive capital for the State in Visakhapatnam and as the members of the 1st petitioner Trust intend to pass through the said District also now during the Maha Padayatra that there may be strong resistance from the people of cross section, who are favouring the decision of the Government to have the executive capital in Visakhapatnam and it may also cause disturbance to the public peace and tranquillity and that there is every possibility for breaking law and order in the said area, if the members of the 1st petitioner Trust pass through the said area. Therefore, he would submit that taking into consideration all the said facts, that the 2nd respondent Director General of Police has rightly declined permission to the 1st petitioner Trust by the impugned order. He would submit that the impugned order is perfectly sustainable under law and the same is not liable to be set aside. Therefore, the learned Government Pleader for Home would pray for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

CMR, J.

12. Learned Government Pleader for Home would also submit that the petitioners have already challenged the decision of the Government in abolishing the AP CRDA Act and bringing a new enactment in its place to establish three capitals for the State of Andhra Pradesh and the said Writ Petitions were allowed and the subsequent applications filed by them for implementing the directions of the Court are also pending adjudication by this Court and as they have already taken recourse to the legal proceedings for redressal of their grievance that the petitioners are not justified again to take out a public procession by conducting Maha Padayatra. Therefore, learned Government Pleader for Home has opposed the claim of the petitioners on the aforesaid ground also.

13. The material facts relating to the lis are not in controversy. Admittedly, about 30,000 farmers relating to A.P. Capital Region have surrendered their agricultural lands to the then Government under the AP CRDA Act for the purpose of establishing a capital city for the newly carved out State of Andhra Pradesh under the A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014. It is not in dispute that the present Government has abolished the said AP CRDA Act and brought into existence a new enactment in its place to have three capitals for the State of Andhra Pradesh. The farmers opposed the 11 CMR, J.

said decision of the present Government and they have also challenged the abolition of the A.P. CRDA Act and introducing the new enactment in its place in this Court by way of filing various Writ Petitions. The said Writ Petitions are also allowed by this Court and this Court has given certain directions to the Government to develop the capital area by using the lands that are surrendered by the farmers. The petitioners therein have also filed various applications before this Court for implementing the said directions of the Court being aggrieved by the inaction of the Government in implementing the directions given by this Court. They are all now pending adjudication before this Court.

14. Whileso, the petitioners intend to have Maha Padayatra to take out a public procession from Amaravati to Arasavalli to air their voice and to ventilate their grievance in this regard. As noticed supra, they have also submitted a written request to the 2nd respondent Director General of Police on 27.08.2022 to permit them to take out the procession by conducting Maha Padayatra from Amaravati to Arasavalli from 12.09.2022 to 11.11.2022. The said request was rejected by the impugned order, dated 08.09.2022, by the 2nd respondent Director General of Police. The request was mainly rejected on the ground that earlier when the 12 CMR, J.

police have permitted the 1st petitioner Trust to conduct Maha Padayatra from Amaravati to Tirupati, as per the directions of this Court given in a Writ Petition filed by the 1st petitioner Trust by imposing reasonable conditions and restrictions, that the members of the 1st petitioner Trust have violated the said conditions and directions given both by this Court and also by the police in the order permitting them to conduct Maha Padayatra and law and order problem arose on account of the said violation of directions committed by the members of the 1st petitioner Trust and about 71 criminal cases were registered against them at that time. The other ground on which the permission was rejected by the impugned order is that there are cross section of people, who belong to the Visakhapatnam Region, who are favouring the decision of the Government to have the executive capital at Visakhapatnam, and as the members of the 1st petitioner Trust and the farmers are now passing through the said Visakhapatnam District, that there is a possibility of law and order problem to take place. The permission was also rejected on other various grounds, which are set out in the impugned order.

15. The grounds, which are enumerated in the impugned order, to reject permission to the members of the 1st petitioner Trust to 13 CMR, J.

take out a procession and conduct Maha Padayatra as per the route map and schedule submitted to him are, undoubtedly, legally unsustainable. The right to assemble peacefully and to move from one place to any part of the country by taking a procession to air the voice of the members of the 1 st petitioner Trust and the farmers to ventilate their grievance is the fundamental right of the members of the 1st petitioner Trust and the farmers as citizens of this country guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b) and (d) of the Constitution of India.

16. In fact, the legal position in this regard is not res integra and the same has been well-settled. The Apex Court way back in the year 1961 itself, in the case of Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra1 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."

17. In the case of Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar2, the Apex Court held that right to protest is a fundamental right and the State must aid the right to assembly of the citizens. In the 1 1961 (3) SCR 423 2 (1962) Supp 3 SCR 369 14 CMR, J.

case of Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad3, the 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.

18. In the case of Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India4 the Apex Court 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.

19. Therefore, 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 3 (1973) 1 SCC 227 4 AIR 2018 SC 3476 = 2018 (10) SCJ 685 15 CMR, J.

Government or other governmental authorities which are not to their liking.

20. The aforesaid legal position enunciated in the judgments rendered by the Apex Court also make the legal position clear that the legitimate dissent is a distinguishable feature of any democracy. So, when the members of the 1st petitioner Trust and the farmers, who are aggrieved by certain decisions that are taken by the present Government and the governmental authorities and when they are fighting the legal battle and also got relief in the Writ Petitions that are filed by them and when their present grievance is that the directions in the said Writ Petitions are not being implemented by the present Government, in order to ventilate their grievance and to air their voice and to peacefully protest against the said action of the Government and the decision of the Government, the members of the 1st petitioner Trust and the farmers got fundamental right guaranteed under the aforesaid Articles to have a peaceful protest by conducting Maha Padayatra and take out a procession peacefully.

21. The Apex Court also in the above referred judgments held that a particular cause which, in the first instance, may appear to be insignificant or irrelevant may gain momentum and 16 CMR, J.

acceptability when it is duly voiced and debated and that is the reason that this Court has always protected the valuable right of peaceful and orderly demonstrations and protests.

22. The above view expressed by the Apex Court is apt in the present context to consider. In the instant case also, as already noticed supra, the petitioners intend to air their voice to ventilate their grievances openly and publicly as it is their fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b) and 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India. So, they got every right to lead procession as part of their agitation or protest to ventilate their grievance. However, they have to carry on their procession peacefully and they should not resort to any violence during the process of the Maha Padayatra. Therefore, by imposing reasonable restrictions and conditions, it is always open to the police to permit the members of the 1st petitioner Trust who are undoubtedly citizens of the country to take out a procession by conducting Maha Padayatra as per the schedule given by them and the route map submitted by them, by imposing reasonable restrictions and conditions.

23. Considering the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court in all the above referred judgments, this Court also, when the 17 CMR, J.

petitioners approached this Court in W.P.No.25154 of 2021 seeking permission to conduct Padayatra from Amaravati to Tirupati, permitted the petitioners to conduct Padayatra and take out procession by imposing certain reasonable conditions. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above referred judgments and also in view of the judgment of this Court, earlier passed in W.P.No.25154 of 2021, the petitioners are entitled to permission to take out peaceful procession by conducting Maha Padayatra from 12.09.2022 to 11.11.2022 from Amaravati to Arasavalli as per the route map and schedule submitted by them to the 2nd respondent Director General of Police and to the respondents 3 to 18 Superintendents of Police of various districts.

24) The contention of the respondent police officials that if permission is accorded to the 1st petitioner Trust and the farmers to conduct Maha Padayatra and to take out procession, that it may lead to law and order problem is not at all tenable. There is also no justification on the part of the 2nd respondent Director General of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh, in rejecting the permission to the 1st petitioner Trust to conduct the said Maha Padayatra and to take out procession on the ground that there is 18 CMR, J.

possibility of law and order problem to take place during the said process. The respondent police officials cannot reject permission on some imaginary apprehensions that the procession may lead to law and order problem. Even if there is any possibility of law and order problem to take place, it is the duty of the police to control the said situation and to maintain law and order. They cannot usurp the fundamental rights of the citizens on imaginary apprehensions and grounds that there may be a possibility of law and order problem to take place, if any such permission is given. The respondent police officials cannot shun their responsibility to control law and order situation, which is apprehended, by rejecting permission to the 1st petitioner Trust and thereby usurp their fundamental rights.

25) In fact, in one of the judgments cited supra, the Apex Court also held that police cannot reject permissions to take out procession or to assemble peacefully to ventilate grievance of the citizens on the ground of there is possibility of law and order problem to take place and held that it is the duty of the police to control the said law and order situation and take adequate steps to see that no such law and order problem arises. Therefore, the 19 CMR, J.

said ground and also the other grounds on which the permission was rejected by the impugned order are not legally sustainable.

26) There are also numerous instances in the State of Andhra Pradesh where leaders of various political parties have earlier conducted Padayatras as part of their political activities. Police have also granted permissions to them to conduct Padayatras. So, when the farmers, who are claiming to be victims in the given facts and circumstances of the case, intend to conduct Maha Padayatra and procession to air their voice and to ventilate their grievance in this regard, there is absolutely no justification on the part of the 2nd respondent Director General of Police in rejecting permission to the 1st petitioner Trust by the impugned order.

27. Resultantly, 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 rejecting the permission to the petitioners to conduct Maha Padayatra to take out a public procession, as illegal and legally unsustainable. The 2nd respondent Director General of Police is directed to accord permission to the 1st petitioner Trust and to its members and farmers to conduct Maha Padayatra and to take out public 20 CMR, J.

procession from 12.09.2022 to 11.11.2022 from Amaravati to Arasavalli, as per the route map and schedule submitted by them.

28. However, the 1st petitioner Trust is permitted to take out the said procession only with 600 (six hundred) people, who shall be the farmers. The 1st petitioner Trust shall furnish the names and details of the said 600 persons, who would be participating in the said public procession in Maha Padayatra to the 2nd respondent Director General of Police by 5.00 P.M. today.

29. The 1st petitioner Trust shall take out the said public procession in Maha Padayatra peacefully without resorting to any acts of violence. They should not indulge in any illegal acts. They should not make any comments or use any abusive language against the authorities, who are at the helm of affairs of the State. The 1st petitioner Trust shall not allow any other person to participate in the procession on their way to Arasavalli. However, other persons are at liberty to express their solidarity to the farmers in a peaceful manner on their way to Arasavalli.

30. The 2nd respondent Director General of Police shall pass and issue order accordingly granting permission to the 1st petitioner Trust to conduct Maha Padayatra and to take out public procession from 12.09.2022 to 11.11.2022 as per the route map 21 CMR, J.

and the schedule submitted by them by imposing reasonable restrictions and conditions by 6.00 P.M. today i.e. 09.09.2022.

31. The 1st petitioner Trust shall conduct the said Maha Padayatra only from 8.00 A.M. to 6.00 P.M. from 12.09.2022 till 11.11.2022. The 1st petitioner Trust are permitted to exhibit Sri Venkateswara Swamy idol in front of the procession and also to carry on the vehicle, L.E.D. screen and the bio-toilets for the use of the participants of the procession. The 1st petitioner Trust is permitted to use hand mike sets during their procession. But, they should not hold any public meetings on their way from Amaravati to Arasavalli. The petitioners shall scrupulously comply with the said directions of this Court, as stated supra.

32. In case the members of the 1st petitioner Trust violate the conditions imposed, the respondent police officials are at liberty to proceed against them according to law by following due process of law. However, if the respondent police officials intend to cancel the permission or licence that is granted to the petitioners, the respondent police officials have to approach this Court by way of filing an application setting forth the reasons to cancel the permission or licence. They should not resort to unilateral cancellation of the permission or the licence. 22

CMR, J.

33. The learned Government Pleader for Home is directed to inform the 2nd respondent Director General of Police about the above order passed by this Court and the directions given by this Court to enable him to pass an order permitting the petitioners to conduct Maha Padayatra and the public procession, by 6.00 P.M. today.

34. There shall be no order as to costs.

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

________________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date:09.09.2022.

Note:

Issue C.C. today.

B/O cs