Madras High Court
V.Rajamony vs The Superintendent Of Police on 30 January, 2019
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 30.01.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
W.P.(MD) No.1514 of 2019
V.Rajamony ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Kanyakumari District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Arumanai Police Station,
Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to
the impugned proceedings issued by the second respondent Inspector of
Police, Arumanai, Kanyakumari District dated 22.01.2019, quash the same and
further direct the respondents to give permission to the petitioner to conduct
the Convention Meeting at Puliyoor Salai Junction in R.S.No.274/3A5 and
274/3A6 on 01.02.2019, 02.02.2019 and 03.02.2019 between 6.00 pm and 9
pm.
(Prayer is amended as per order of this Court dated 30.01.2019, made in
W.M.P.(MD)No.1465 of 2019)
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Xavier Rajini
For Respondents : Mr.R.Anandharaj
Additional Public Prosecutor
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the second respondent Inspector of Police, Arumanai, Kanyakumari District dated 22.01.2019, quash the same and further direct the respondents to give permission to the petitioner to conduct the Convention Meeting at Puliyoor Salai Junction in R.S.No.274/3A5 and 274/3A6 on 01.02.2019, 02.02.2019 and 03.02.2019 between 6.00 pm and 9 pm.
2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a Pastor in International Zion Assembly Church, Vannamkonam, Kanyakumari District and that they have decided to conduct Convention Meeting from 01.02.2019 to 03.02.2019 between 06.00 pm and 9.00 pm for the welfare of the pubic and students, who are going to writ their public examinations and that the meeting is only organized for their members of the Church. He would further submit that the petitioner made all arrangements to conduct Convention Meeting at a private property belonging to the petitioner and his son at Puliyoor village in R.S.No.274/3A5 and 274/3A6 and thereby the petitioner had requested the respondent for granting permission to conduct meeting. He would also submit that the petitioner had given representation to the respondent on 15.01.2019 seeking for permission. Since the respondent did not grant permission, the petitioner had filed Writ of http://www.judis.nic.in 3 Mandamus seeking for a direction and while this Writ Petition was pending, the petitioner was served with the impugned order dated 22.01.2019 rejecting the permission to conduct meeting and advertise through vehicle stating that there was objection from the other persons and that the permission had been sought for conducting meeting for the first time. He would submit that the petitioner has not done any advertisement for the meeting through vehicle and that they have intended to conduct meeting only to their members.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that the petitioner has got right under Article 19 as well as Article 25 of Constitution of India to conduct meeting and that the respondents based on the objections stated to have been given by somebody as if would create law and order problem has rejected the request of the petitioner. He would submit that the petitioner had never been the cause of any law and order problem and has not been brought to any adverse remark and that the respondents, who are responsible for maintaining law and order cannot shy away their responsibilities and reject the application. He would submit that the petitioner is prepared to abide by any conditions or reasonable restrictions imposed by the respondent police and that the petitioner will conduct the meeting in accordance with law within his premises without creating disturbance to the other persons in the village and also to the neighbors in the area. He would submit that cone speakers will not be used by the petitioner http://www.judis.nic.in 4 and that he would ensure that the volume of the sound system will be only within the permissible limits of law without causing any nuisance or noise pollution to others.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the decision of this Court reported in 2015 (1) CTC 49 Durai Sankar Vs.The Secretary to the Government, Home Department, Government of Tamilnadu would submit that the respondent be directed to grant permission with reasonable restrictions.
5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents would submit that the respondent has serious objections and that people in the surrounding area have given objections for conducting meeting and that there is also no parking facility. He would further submit that permission had been sought for three days and that the respondents have some reservations for granting permission for three days and would submit that the petitioner may restrict conducting meeting for two days.
6.At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the vehicles of the participants will be parked away from the location without causing disturbance to free flow of traffic or to neighbors in the vicinity. He would also submit that the petitioner will restrict the convention http://www.judis.nic.in 5 meeting for two days i.e. on 02.01.2019 and 03.02.2019.
7.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 22.01.2019 is quashed and this petition is allowed. The respondents police are directed to grant permission for conducting the Convention meeting, by enclosing the following conditions:
1) The convention meeting scheduled to be held from 02.01.2019 to 03.02.2019 by the petitioner at Puliyoor Salai Junction in R.S.No.274/3A5 and 274/3A6, Kanyakumari District should be completed within the time frame fixed by the respondent police;
2) The petitioner and other participants shall not deliver any speech affecting religious and communal harmony;
3) Public address system can be used only within permissible limits without causing nuisance and noise pollution to others;
4) 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 stop the meeting;
5) Similarly, the Police is empowered to stop the convention meeting, if it exceeds beyond the permitted time;
6) The second respondent is at liberty to impose any further restrictions or to impose any condition purely in the interest of preserving public order and tranquillity, so as to maintain law and order and communal harmony.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA.J. gns
8. The petitioner is also directed to ensure that the conditions are strictly compiled with and also to ensure that no law and order problem is created in the course of conducting the convention meeting.
9. The writ petition stands disposed of with the above directions. No costs.
30.01.2019
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
gns
Note:Issue order copy on 31.01.2019
To
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Kanyakumari District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Arumanai Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.
W.P.(MD) No.1514 of 2019
http://www.judis.nic.in