Madras High Court
A.Velladurai vs The Inspector General Of Police on 27 January, 2016
Author: S.Vaidyanathan
Bench: S.Vaidyanathan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 27.01.2016
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
W.P.(MD) No.22274 of 2015
A.Velladurai ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Inspector General of Police,
Central Zone, Trichy.
2. The Superintendent of Police,
Pudukottai, Pudikottai District.
3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Pudukottai, Pudukottai District.
4. The Inspector of Police,
Ganesh Nagar Police Station,
Pudukottai District. .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in
Na.Ka.No.1237/NDIS/SDO/PDK/2015 dated 07.12.2015 affixed on 09.12.2015 by the
3rd respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to
grant the permission to hold the political parties awareness public meeting
in respect of abolition of liquor, corruption and to make public demands on
23.12.2015 at 04.00 PM to 09.00 PM at Chinnappa Park, Pudukottai Town,
Pudukottai District.
!For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ramu
For Respondents : Mr.K.Chella Pandian, AAG,
Assisted by Mr.D.Muruganandam,AGP
:ORDER
This writ petition has been filed, seeking to quash the impugned order dated 07.12.2015, affixed on 09.12.2015 passed by the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.1237/NDIS/SDO/PDK/2015, in and by which, the request of the petitioner for public meeting was declined. The petitioner also sought a direction to the respondents to grant permission to hold public meeting in respect of abolition of liquor, corruption and public demands.
2. The facts leading to filing of this writ petition are as follows:
i) The petitioner is the President of Eluchi Thamizhargal Munnetra Kazhagam registered in No.56/189/13/PPS-I in the year 2013, which has also been registered before the Election Commission of India, New Delhi. The party of the petitioner has conducted state level conference at Madurai and another conference at Natham, Dindigul District with due permission of Police without causing any disturbance to general public.
ii) It is submitted that his party decided to conduct political party awareness meeting at Chinnappa Park, Pudukottai Town, Pudukottai on 10.12.2015 for abolition of liquor and corruption, for which, permission was sought from the 4th respondent by way of representation dated 16.11.2015 with a copy to both the 2nd and 3rd respondents. To the shock and surprise, the 2nd respondent declined to give permission on the ground that since the petitioner is the native of Madurai, permission is not granted, which forced him to send another representation to the 1st respondent on 23.11.2015 and there was no response from him.
iii) It is the submission of the petitioner that once other political parties were granted permission to hold a public meeting at the same locality on 02.11.2015, the act of the respondents is highly discriminative and partial. Immediately, thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.20142 of 2015 for a direction, wherein this Court directed the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner. As directed by this Court, the petitioner submitted the application and it was on 09.12.2015 that the 3rd respondent called the petitioner and informed about the order of rejection.
iv) The petitioner assailed the rejection order stating that it is in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and when the petitioner is a registered political party, the act of the respondents in treating the petitioner's party as a communal organization is not correct. A name of one Balakrishnan has been found mentioned in the rejection order, who published pamphlets against a Minister. However, the respondent failed to realize that the said person is not a member of his party. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court, seeking for the relief stated above.
3. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter, wherein it has been inter alia stated asunder:
i) It is stated that one Ravi Balaji, District Secretary of Tamil Nadu Mutharaiyar Munnetra Sangam made an application to the 4th respondent for conducting demonstration on 05.11.2015 as against a Minister, who is alleged to have called one Gangaiammal, Chairman of Karambakudi Panchayat Union, by using her community name and the said application was rejected. However, rumours were spread as if permission was granted by this Court and around 5000 people started assembling at Pudukottai at the instigation of the said Ravi Balaji and Police arrested those persons with an intent to maintain law and order in Pudukottai Town.
ii) It is also stated that now the petitioner has taken steps to do the same exercise and he and his District Secretary made an application to the respondent police for permission to conduct fasting on 12.11.2015 at Thilakar Thidal for the act of the Minister and when the same was pending, the petitioner's political party filed W.P.(MD) No.20142 of 2015 for direction.
As against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal in W.A.(MD) No.1226 of 2015, which was also dismissed.
iii) It is further submitted that the petitioner's political party through its President filed an application to the respondent police for granting permission meeting on 10.12.2015, which was declined only for the purpose of maintenance of law and order situation in the locality. Permission was not granted based on the assessment of ground reality and circumstances, more particularly, law and order. It is stated that as Section 30(2) of the Police Act is in promulgation in Pudukottai Town, it is the duty of the 3rd respondent to regulate assembly and procession.
iv) Finally, the stand taken in the counter is that as per the information received from the secret and reliable sources, in order to keep the issue alive, chain of various activities are going to the staged so as to cause breach of peace communally and politically in the District. Therefore, it is prayed that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the main intention of the petitioner's political party to conduct political meeting is to discuss on the issue of eradication of liquor and corruption as also with regard to public demands, which cannot be curtailed by the respondent police. When other parties were allowed to conduct such meeting, it is unfair on the part of the respondent police to deny such permission to his party, which is wholly unsustainable. The persons, who are named in the rejection order, do not belong the political party of the petitioner and therefore, the respondent has no power to curtail or crush the fundamental rights of the petitioner's party. It is finally submitted that since the date sought for got already expired, the petitioner's political party is ready to conduct the meeting on some other date.
5. Per contra, the Additional Advocate General has contended that there is no wilful intention to restrain the petitioner's political party to conduct the meeting, which is purely based on the assessment of ground reality and law and order situation, prevailing in the District. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner's political party was earlier given permission at Madurai and Nathan, as those areas are non sensitive areas and if the meeting is allowed to be conducted, it would pave way to other organizations to seek such permission, which will surely end in disturbing public tranquility.
6. Heard the counsel on either side and perused the material documents available on record.
7. It is seen that the permission sought by the petitioner on behalf of his political party for conducting political meeting for eradication of liquor and corruption was denied by the respondent police on the ground that there is a possibility of law and order problem. At the same time, the reasons adduced by the respondents are general in nature and not specific. As regards the alleged report received from Intelligence Bureau, a copy of which was handed over to this Court, the inputs pointed out therein were received over a long period of time and not with exact reference to the public meeting, scheduled to be conducted by the petitioner.
8. In 1st paragraph of the impugned order, it has been stated that previously few persons, namely, Sanjay Gandhi, Annadurai, Selvakumar and others attempted to create law and order problem by assembling illegally. According to the petitioner, those persons do not belong to his political party and the respondents are unable to refute the said submission. In case the submission of the petitioner is found to be false, he can be taken as a task for imposition of punishment of perjury.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tata Cellular vs. Union of India, reported in 1994 (6) SCC 651, has held that the Court should not ordinarily interfere in administrative matters, since the administrative authorities are specialists in matters relating to the administration. The Court does not have the expertise in such matters, and ordinarily should leave such matters to the discretion of the administrative authorities. It is only in rare and exception cases, where the Wednesbury principle applies, that the Court should interfere.
10. This Court is also aware of the fact that maintenance of law and order is ordinarily an executive function and it is ordinarily not proper for the judiciary to interfere in the matter and of the three organs of the State, it is only the judiciary which has the right to determine the limits of jurisdiction of all these three organs and therefore, it must exercise self-restraint and eschew the temptation to act as a super legislature or a Court of appeal sitting over the decisions of the administrative authorities. Of course, if a decision clearly violates some provision of the law or Constitution or found to be arbitrary, it can be struck down.
11. In this case, the respondents are not in a position to point out any other reasons except repeating the same story in parrot-fashioned manner. The meeting scheduled to be conducted by the petitioner is for public cause, viz., abolition of liquor, corruption and to look after public demands, which cannot be curtailed by the respondents and in that case, interference by this Court is very minimal. Moreover, it is pertinent to mention here that Section 30(2) of the Police Act, 1861 has been provided only for regulation and not prohibition. Even though the respondents stated that permission was earlier granted to other parties considering the ground reality, without pointing out any proof of violation of the petitioner's party, the pre- determination of the respondents cannot be acceptable.
12. Keeping in mind all these factors, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 07.12.2015 does not have legs to stand and the same is liable to be dismissed. The petitioner has, in the midst of argument, stated that his political party is ready to conduct the meeting on some other date that may be fixed.
13. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 07.12.2015 is set aside. The respondents are directed to grant permission to the petitioner for holding public meeting in respect of abolition of liquor and corruption at the venue sought by them on the date to be chosen by the petitioner. The petitioner shall furnish all the details as required by the respondent police in the questionnaire irrespective of its relevancy, including the names of persons, along with their photographs and ID proof, who will take the responsibility in case of any untoward incident. Sine it is represented by the respondents that in and around the place, where the meeting is proposed to be conducted, there are commercial complex, hospitals, children's park and bus stops situated, the petitioner should advise his party cadres not to cause any hindrance to them.
14. The respondents, while granting permission on receipt of necessary particulars from the petitioner, are entitled to impose necessary conditions apart from the conditions stipulated under:
i) The petitioner and other participants shall not shout, raise any slogan for or against any party or party leader, any caste, community or creed.
ii) The petitioner shall ensure that no untoward incident is caused disturbing the public peace and tranquility.
iii) The petitioner shall ensure proper first aid arrangements by keeping one or two doctors in the venue.
iv) The participants of the meeting shall not wear any form of dress showing offending slogans or picture of any communal/political leader which may cause disturbance.
v)Songs praising communal leader or having communal overtones should not be played.
vi) The petitioner has to obtain proper permission from the concerned authority for mounting flex boards or hoardings, but however, it should not depict any particular community or leader, who is alive.
(vii) If there is any violation of any one of the conditions imposed, the concerned Police Officer is at liberty to take necessary action, as per law and Police is empowered to stop the meeting in midway.
(viii) The petitioner and his cadres shall not intake any kind of toxic substance or liquor during the meeting. In the event of any suspicion of consumption of alcohol, by the respondent police, they can very well check the person by using Alcohol Breath Analyser;
(ix) If there is any untoward incident taken place, the organizers of the meeting be made responsible for the same;
(x) The petitioner shall not use microphones with loud speakers or amplifiers, as it causes disturbance to the students, patients and old aged people during the meeting.
(xi) The petitioner and his cadres must ensure keeping the meeting place clean and litter free and there shall be a prohibition for usage of any kind of plastic in the locality. No costs.
To
1. The Inspector General of Police, Central Zone, Trichy.
2. The Superintendent of Police, Pudukottai, Pudikottai District.
3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pudukottai, Pudukottai District.
4. The Inspector of Police, Ganesh Nagar Police Station, Pudukottai District.
5. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. .