Madras High Court
P.Rathinam vs The Superintendent Of Police on 4 July, 2009
Author: R.S.Ramanathan
Bench: R.S.Ramanathan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04/07/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN W.P.(MD)No.5765 of 2009 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009 P.Rathinam ...Petitioner Vs. 1.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District. Madurai. 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Melur Sub Division, Madurai District. 3.The Inspector of Police, Melur Police Station, Madurai District. 4.Mr.Manoharan I.P.S. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District. ...Respondents Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned Order in Na.Ka.No.11/Gen./SDO.MLR/09 dated 03.07.2009 on the file of the respondent No.2 served to the petitioner on 04.07.2009 at 12.15 P.M. and quash the same as illegal and consequently, to direct the respondents to accord permission to conduct the one day function viz., Dr.Ambedkar Makkal Noolaka Vizha or (People Library) on 05.07.2009 at Chennakarampatti in Melur Taluk in Madurai District and direct the respondent No.4 to provide fair and just amount as compensation to the petitioner and pass further orders. !For Petitioner ... Mr.T.Lajapathy Roy ^For Respondents ... Mr.Pala Ramasamy Special Government Pleader :ORDER
Heard Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Pala Ramasamy, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The 2nd respondent was present in Court and after getting the file from him, the learned Special Government Pleader has submitted his arguments.
2.The petitioner is a practising Advocate and has filed the above writ petition challenging the order of the 2nd respondent made in Na.Ka.No.11/Genl./SDO.MLR/09 dated 03.07.2009 stating that the impugned order was served on him at 12.15 P.M. on 04.07.2009. Thereafter, he sought for permission from the Honourable Chief Justice of this Court and as per the direction of the Honourable Chief Justice, special sitting was ordered today at 8.00 P.M. and the matter was heard.
3.The case of the petitioner is that on 24.06.2009 he presented a petition to the 2nd respondent seeking permission to open a library in the name of Dr.Ambedkar Makkal Noolagam from 10.00 A.M. to 4.30 P.M. on 05.07.2009. It was further stated that he also made a written representation containing the same allegations and averments made in the representation dated 24.06.2009 to the 1st and 4th respondents on 03.07.2009 and on 04.07.2009 at 12.15 P.M. the order of the 2nd respondent denying the permission to have the function on 05.07.2009 was served on him and immediately, he approached this Honourable Court.
4.Mr.T.Lajapathy Roy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the purpose of opening the library in the village Chennakarampatti, Melur Taluk in Madurai District is to create awareness among the Dalit people and to enlighten them about their rights and by giving them education, they would become a good citizens of this country and only with those objects, the old students of Madurai Law College viz., who studied between the year 1983 to 1988 collected funds and made arrangements to open a library in the Chennakarampatti village.
5.He further submitted that publicity about the function was already given 15 days earlier to the date of function and they have already made wall writings all over Madurai District in more than 30 places informing the public about the function to be held on 05.07.2009.
6.Mr.T.Lajapathy Roy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would further submit that the participants in the function are highly educated people and respected citizens of this country and therefore, they would not indulge in any illegal activities so as to create breach of the peace and law and order problem and therefore, the apprehension of the 2nd respondent that by allowing the function to happen will create law and order problem is only a figment of imagination and there is no basis for his apprehension.
7.He further challenged the reason for denying the permission on the ground that tension between the Dalits and caste Hindus in that particular village had not ceased and by permitting the opening of such library, the books kept in that library would create disharmony, anger and hatred between the caste Hindus and Dalits and submitted that there is no basis for that.
8.He further developed his argument by stating that on 30.06.2009, huge number of Dalit people assembled in Melavazhavu village, which according to him 2 Kms to Chennakarampatti, and according to the learned Special Government Pleader, Mr.Pala Ramasamy, Melavazhavu village is only 500 Mtrs from Chennakarampatti village and no untoward incidents happened on that date, when more than 5000 people assembled to pay homage in Melavazhavu village.
9.The reason stated in para 2 of the impugned order is also assailed by Mr.T.Lajapathy Roy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on the ground that the incident referred to in para 2 took place in the year 1997 and for the past 12 years, there is no law and order problem in that village and therefore, the apprehension of the 2nd respondent that by permitting a meeting on the occasion of the opening of library and providing a feast by serving beef and other food items will not create any law and order problem.
10.MrT.Lajapathy Roy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, further contended that the 2nd respondent has no power under Section 30 of the Police Act and as per Section 30(1) of the Police Act, the police have no authority to prohibit the convening of a meeting and they can only regulate the same and the opening of the library in a house will not come under the provisions of Section 30 of the Police Act, which would enable the respondents to deny the permission.
11.Mr.Pala Ramasamy, the learned Special Government Pleader, raised a preliminary objection stating that there is no urgency for hearing the writ petition today at this time and this function can be postponed and even according to the petitioner, they have not spent huge amount and the amount to be incurred for providing feast can be deferred, since they are going to spend those amounts only on 05.07.2009. Therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner to have the function postponed to some other date, so that the respondents would be in a position to place their objections with more details justifying their action in refusing to grant permission to the function.
12.Mr.Pala Ramsamy, the learned Special Government Pleader, further brought to my notice the statement in the invitation and emphasized that the reasons stated in the representation and the wording in the invitation would make it clear that the purpose of the petitioner to have the function on 05.07.2009 is only to incite the people especially Dalits and to spread communal disharmony, hatred and anger between the caste Hindus and Dalits and having regard to the topography of the village and the population it would be very difficult for the police to maintain the law and order problem.
13.He would further state that Melavazhavu village, Chennakarampatti village and Manjinagaram are situate within the Melur Taluk, Madurai District, and they are the three sensitive places in that taluk and the respondents are keeping close vigil through out the day so as to maintain the law and order in those villages and if the function like this, is allowed to be conducted, the communal harmony would be disturbed and it would be very difficult for the police to control the speakers and the police would find it difficult to maintain the law and order problem.
14.He further submitted that by not allowing any meeting or speeches in those villages, they were able to maintain the peace and law and order in those villages all these years and even temple festivals are not permitted in those villages. Except the meeting on 30 June of every year to pay homage to the persons, who were massacred and a meeting in connection with that, no other meeting is permitted or conducted in those three villages.
15.Therefore, he would submit that if such permission is granted that would create law and order problem and it would be very difficult for the police to maintain law and order. However, he reiterated that there is no urgency to hear the writ petition at this odd hours and the case can be adjourned to some other day so as to enable him to file a counter with all details about the steps taken to prevent the law and order problem in these three villages and the petitioner would not be prejudiced, if the function is postponed.
16.Mr.T.Lajapathy Roy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the action of the respondents in refusing permission to hold the opening of the library and meeting in connection with that is violative of Article 19 of the Constitution of India and this has been depreciated by the Division Bench of this Honourable Court in 2008(3) MLJ 926 in the case of C.J.Rajan,Madurai vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mayiladuthurai and another, wherein the power of the respondents under Section 30 has been stated in para 12 of the judgment, which is as follows:
"With respect to the respondents reliance upon Section 30(2) of the Police Act 1861, it can only be said that it enables the respondents to direct the control and conduct of all assemblies and processions on public road or in the public streets or through fares and to prescribe the Rules by which and the times by which the processions may pass and Section 30(2) and (3) on which reliance was placed, is extracted below:
Section 30(2) He may also on being satisfied that it is intended by any persons or class of persons to convene or collect an assembly in any such road, street or thoroughfare or to form a procession which would, in the judgment of the Magistrate of the District or of the sub-division of a district, if uncontrolled, be likely to cause a breach of the peace, require by general of special notice, that the persons convening or collecting such assembly or directing or promoting such procession shall apply for a licence.
On such application being made, he may issue a licence, specifying the names of the licenses and denying the conditions on which alone such assembly or such procession is to be permitted to take place, and otherwise giving effect to this section"
Therefore, the said provision is only a regulatory power and not a blanket power to strife any democratic dissent of the citizens by the Police."
17.He further submitted that as per the judgment reported in 2005(3) CTC 260, in the case of Adhirai M.M.Ibrahim vs. The Commissioner of Police,Chennai City,Chennai-8, permission cannot be denied on the ground but to have the meeting on the ground that it would create law and order.
18.I have carefully considered the rival submissions made by both parties.
19.In this case, the conduct of the petitioner is not satisfactory to say the least. According to the petitioner, he had made arrangements for the meeting 15 days earlier and being a practising advocate, he must be also aware that he has to obtain permission from the respondents for conducting the meeting. Though it is stated in the affidavit that on 24.06.2009, a representation was made before the 2nd respondent, it is surprising to note that a person like the petitioner gave the representation on that date without getting acknowledgement. Further in the representation submitted on 03.07.2009, it has not been stated that they had already presented the representation before the 2nd respondent on 24.06.2009 and as no action has been taken and hence they are submitting the same representation before the first respondent on 03.07.2009. Therefore, I cannot believe the statement of the petitioner made in the affidavit that on 24.06.2009, a representation has been made and thereafter, on 03.07.2009 another representation was made as the respondents did not respond to the representation given by the petitioner on 24.06.2009. Hence, in my opinion, the petitioner must have submitted the representation for the first time only on 03.07.2009 and having fixed the function on 05.07.2009, his conduct in approaching the respondents at the eleventh hour is highly depreciated and that would also place the respondents in a difficult situation to deal with the law and order problem that may emerge by permitting the function to be held on 05.07.2009.
20.Nevertheless, having passed an order rejecting the permission and when that order is challenged before this Court, we will have to see whether the order passed by the 2nd respondent can be sustained.
21.Mr.T.Lajapathy Roy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the function was organised only for the purpose of opening a library to create awarenesses amongst Dalits and to enlighten them about their rights. Though that object seems to be laudable, the fixing of that function on 05.07.2009 which also coincides with the date of death of two Dalits of that village would make it significant. If the object of the petitioner is to have a library to enlighten the Dalits, the same could have been done on any another day. But having chosen 05.07.2009 which coincides with the death anniversary of those two persons, who were killed on 05.07.1992, would justify the apprehension of the respondents about the maintenance of law and order problem by allowing the function on that day. At the same time, we will have to see the events that had taken place in those two villages viz., Melavazhavu and Chennakarampatti villageas. Admittedly, after the year 1997, no untoward incidents happened in those two villages and despite the convergence of more than 5000 people on 30th June of every year, followed by a meeting the peace and tranquillity in those two villages were not disturbed and the police were able to maintain the law and order in those two villages. Therefore, by permitting the opening of the library, in my opinion, may not create any law and order problem.
22.Further as per Section 30(2) of the Police Act, if the police are satisfied that the persons to convening or collecting such an assembly or directing or promoting such provisions, if uncontrolled, be likely to cause a breach of the peace then they can direct them to apply for a licence and while issuing such licence under Section 30(2) Police authority are liberty to impose any conditions on which alone such assemble or such possession is to be permitted to take place and there is no provision under Section 30 of the Police Act enabling the police to refuse permission.
23.Mr.Pala Ramasmy, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, also brought to my notice Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Police Act and contended that under Section 41(1) the Commissioner may, by order in writing, prohibit any assembly, meeting or procession if he considers such prohibition is necessary for the preservation of the public peace or public safety; Therefore relying upon the Section 41, he would contend that the Police have got every right to prohibit if they consider such prohibition is necessary for the preservation of the public peace or public safety.
24.Mr.T.Lajapathy Roy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the provisions of Tamil Nadu Police Act, may not be applicable to the present case as the place where the function is to be held comes within Melur Taluk, Madurai District and the provisions of Police Act and Tamil Nadu District Police Act alone will apply,in my opinion, though the provisions of Tamil Nadu City Police Act, may not be applicable by way of analogy, the provisions can be looked into while granting or refusing the permission.
25.According to me, under Section 30 of the Police Act and 41 of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act, the authority has been given power to prohibit breach of the peace or processions which are necessary for the preservation of public peace or public safety respectively.
26.In the impugned order, permission was rejected on the ground that it would create law and order problem, but nothing has been stated about the breach of the peace and preservation of the public peace or public safety. Therefore, strictly speaking under Section 30 of the Tamil Nadu Police Act and 41 of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act, unless there is any apprehension to the disturbance of public peace or public safety, the authority cannot refuse permission.
27.In this case, the impugned order only speaks about the law and order problem and therefore, the petitioner may be justified in saying that on that ground the 2nd respondent cannot refuse permission. In my opinion, the impugned order has to be taken as a whole in the background of the prevailing situation in that area and the purpose for which the meeting is convened. As rightly pointed out by Mr.Pala Ramsamy, the learned Special Government Pleader, a reading of the invitation, in my opinion, instead of creating awareness among Dalits to enlighten them, attempts to remind them about the atrocities committed by Dalits and keep that issue alive.
28.At the same time, the opening of a library with books about the rights of Dalits and providing various materials for the emancipation of Dalits cannot be prohibited as every citizen has got right to promote awareness among the public so long as it does not create any communal disharmony or anger or hatred among the public. Therefore, in my opinion, the refusal for opening a library in a particular village cannot be justified on the ground that it would create law and order problem. But, at the same time, by allowing the function from 10.00 A.M to 5.00 P.M. followed by a meeting and to have a feast during that period may create law and order problem and as rightly pointed out by the learned Special Government Pleader, Mr.Pala Ramsamy, that it would be very difficult for the police to control or restrain the members of the group if they are allowed to speak.
29.Mr.T.Lajapathy Roy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that on instructions from the petitioner he is willing to have the function between 10.00 A.M. to 3.00 P.M. and he also assured the Court that there will be no inflammatory speeches by the speakers as they are respectful people and there would not be any law and order problem by allowing the function. However, having regard to the purpose for which function is to be conducted, in my opinion, permission can be granted only for the purpose of inauguration of the library,for unveiling of portraits as stated in the invitation and the presentation of books for the library and all these could be finished within a span of 2 hours followed by feast as announced by the petitioner.
30.Therefore, having regard to the purpose for which the function is to be held, I permit the function subject to the following conditions:
i.The function can be conducted from 11.00 A.M. to 1.00 P.M. followed by a feast and there should not be any speeches by any speakers either praising any of the persons or decrying caste Hindus and other community people and the function is permitted only for the purpose of opening the library unveiling of portraits and for the presentation of the books.
ii.The respondents are at liberty to take action if any books containing inflammatory articles spreading communal disharmony, hatred or anger are found in that library.
iii.The function shall commence on 05.07.2009 at 11.00 A.M. and shall conclude by 1.00 P.M and the feast must be over before 3.00 P.M. iv.The petitioner shall take steps to see that no untoward incidents take place on that occasion and it is also made clear that the conduct of meeting is prohibited by this order on that date and permission is granted only for the purpose of opening the library.
v.The respondents must take earnest steps to see that the adequate police force is provided to prevent the happening of any untoward incidents on 05.07.2009 vi.The petitioner and the participants in the function are directed to keep restrain and help the police to maintain the law and order , while in the function is being conducted and it is open to the respondents to take action as per law,if there is any violation of any of the condition or situation warrants.
vii.The police is also permitted to take video of the entire proceedings.
31.With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No cost.
er To,
1.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Melur Sub Division, Madurai District.
3.The Inspector of Police, Melur Police Station, Madurai District.
4.Mr.Manoharan I.P.S. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District.
5.The Special Government Pleader, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.