Madras High Court
K.Chinnakaruppan vs The Superintendent Of Police on 12 November, 2014
Author: M.Venugopal
Bench: M.Venugopal
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.11.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL W.P.(MD)No.18165 of 2014 K.Chinnakaruppan ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul. 2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ottanchathiram Sub-Division, Ottanchathiram, Dindigul District. 3. The Inspector of Police, Ottanchathiram Police Station, Dindigul District. ... Respondents PRAYER Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.286/SDO-ODC/14 dated 21.10.2014 on the file of the respondent No.2 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondent No.2 to grant permission to conduct continuous demonstration on 15.11.2014 at about 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. or any other date at Ottanchathiram Dharapuram Junction against the illegal activities of one Ilavarsu, who is working as Inspector of Police with the respondent No.3 regard foisting false cases against the members of Scheduled Caste peoples and the members of the said movements. !For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy ^For Respondents : Mr.V.Muruganandam Additional Govt. Pleader :ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.286/SDO/ODC/14 dated 21.10.2014 on the file of the second respondent and to quash the same as an illegal one. Further, the petitioner has sought for passing of an order by this Court in directing the second respondent to grant permission to conduct continuous demonstration on 15.11.2014 at about 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. or any other date at Ottanchathiram Dharapuram Junction against the illegal activities of one Ilavarsu, who is working as Inspector of Police with the third respondent and foisting false cases against the members of Scheduled Caste Community peoples and the members of the said movements.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner submitted an application dated 28.09.2014 addressed to the second respondent seeking permission to conduct continuous demonstration on 24.10.2014 from 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. near Ottanchathiram Roundana on behalf of Untouchability Eradication Front and the same was rejected on 21.10.2014 by the second respondent by assigning the reason that in Ottanchathiram Sub- Division the prohibitory order under Section 30(2) of the Police Act was in force and also bearing in mind of the present law and order problems. It is this order of the second respondent dated 21.10.2014 is assailed by the petitioner in the present writ petition. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a person/individual has the right to hold a meeting on a matter of public importance and in fact Section 30(2) of the Police Act, 1861 merely provides for only a regulatory power and not a blanket power to stifle any democratic dissent of the citizen by the police. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks in aid of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in C.J.Rajan v. Deputy Superintendent of Police reported in 2008 (3) MLJ 926, at page-926 whereby and whereunder it is held as follows:
"Held: It is too late for the respondents to refuse permission to hold a meeting on a matter of public importance. 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 thoroughfares and to prescribe the Rules by which and the times by which the processions may pass. The proposal made on behalf of the petitioner is laudable and it shows their accommodating spirit in relocating the venue of the public meeting to another place after taking note of the objections raised by the respondents. The respondents can have no objection for the present venue, date and time chosen by the petitioner Association for conducting a public meeting. Since the respondents are present in Court and they were also informed about the change of the venue made by the petitioner, it is hereby directed the petitioner need not send any fresh application and the request recorded in this order can be taken as adequate requisition made by the petitioner."
4. Also, the learned counsel for the petitioner invites the attention of this Court to the decision in M.N.Pasarai v. Inspector General of Police and Commissioner of Police reported in (2009) 1 MLJ 695, wherein it is held as follows:
"Held: It is not a case where the petitioner association is seeking for police protection. The further submission that there is likelihood of speeches made in the said meeting, inciting communal hatred or leading to seditious activities are matters to be decided after the meeting takes place, over which sufficient measures are provided under the laws of the country. Writ Petition allowed. petitioner permitted to hold meeting."
5. Also, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the petitioner will be satisfied, if permission to hold demonstration on 15.11.2014 for two hours is at least granted by this Court and in this regard, the Court may determine the time for staging the demonstration as the case may be.
6. Per contra, Mr.V.Muruganandam, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the Prohibitory order under Section 30(2) of the Police Act, 1861 was originally in force on 09.10.2014 for a period of 15 days and subsequently, on 25.10.2014, it was extended for a further period of 15 days.
7. On a careful consideration of respective contentions and also this Court taking note of the fact that the petitioner in para-8 of his affidavit in the writ petition has averred in categorical terms that he sought permission to conduct continuous demonstration on 15.11.2014 at about 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. at Ottanchathiram Dharapuram Junction against the illegal activities of the Inspector viz., Ilavarsu, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.286/SDO-ODC/14 dated 21.10.2014 passed by the second respondent in refusing permission to the petitioner to conduct continuous demonstration is clearly an invalid and illegal one in the eye of law because of the simple reason that a citizen has a right to hold a meeting on a matter of public importance and furthermore, Section 30(2) of the Police Act, 1861 provides only for a regulatory power and not a blanket power to hinder or prevent any democratic dissent to be shown by any citizen/citizens of the Country. Viewed in that perspective, this Court interfere with the said impugned order dated 21.10.2014 passed by the second respondent and quashes the same. Consequently, the writ petition succeeds.
8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.286/SDO-ODC/14 dated 21.10.2014 passed by the second respondent is hereby quashed. Since this Court has quashed the impugned order of the second respondent dated 21.10.2014 as a logical corollary, this Court grants permission to the petitioner to conduct demonstration on 15.11.2014 between 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 p.m. at Ottanchatiram Dharapuram Junction and in this regard, the petitioner is to submit necessary application seeking licence/ permission from the second respondent and the second respondent shall grant the same on receipt of the application / petition of the petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioner is to pay a requisite charges, if any, to the concerned authority, if Law requires him to pay the same. The Petitioner will stage demonstration in question in a peaceful and serene manner also the petitioner shall not exceed the time limit granted by this Court in regard to the staging of demonstration.
12.11.2014 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No akv Note: Issue order copy on 14.11.2014.
To
1. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ottanchathiram Sub-Division, Ottanchathiram, Dindigul District.
3. The Inspector of Police, Ottanchathiram Police Station, Dindigul District.
M.VENUGOPAL,J.
akv W.P.(MD)No.18165 of 2014 12.11.2014