Madras High Court
L.Cheziyan @ Sakthivel vs The Commissioner Of Police on 1 October, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 MAD 1932
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01.10.2018
Date of Reserving the Order
Date of Pronouncing the Order
27.09.2018
01 .10.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.(MD).No.18773 of 2018
L.Cheziyan @ Sakthivel .......
Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Commissioner of Police
O/o. Commissioner of Police
Trichy
2. The Assistant Commissioner of Police
O/o.The Assistant Commissioner of Police
Sri Rangam Region
Trichy
3. The Inspector of Police(Law and Order)
Uraiyur Police Station
Trichy District ......
Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus by calling for the records
relating to the impugned order in Na.Ka. No.100-1/A/Ka.u.a/Sri Rangam
Region/thi/ma 2018 dated 21.08.2018 on the file of the second respondent
and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the first respondent to
grant permission to conduct public conference in respect of ?REPRESSION IS
THE DEMOCRACY? on 08.09.2018 at 5.00P.M to 10.00 A.M venue at Thenur Ulavar
Santhai Corporation Ground, Trichy based on petitioner's representation dated
04.08.2018.
!For Petitioner : Mr.C.M.Arumugam
for Mr. R.Karunanithi
^For Respondents : Mr.Chellapandian
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.B.Bhagawathi
Government Advocate
:ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order of rejection passed by the second respondent in his proceedings dated 21.08.2018, where in the permission sought for by the petitioner to conduct the agitation was refused by the second respondent.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the Regional Coordinator in ?Makkal Athikaram? organisation. The petitioner wanted to conduct the public conference under the heading ? REPRESSION IS THE DEMOCRACY? and planned to hold this conference on 08.09.2018. The petitioner made a representation to the second respondent and the second respondent by impugned order dated 21.08.2018, rejected the permission by stating various grounds.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the second respondent had denied the permission for conducting public conference in arbitrary and discriminating manner and in a democratic country everybody has the right to express their views. The learned counsel would further submit that even on earlier occasions, when permission was denied by the police, the petitioner had approached this Court and got permission to conduct the meeting. The learned counsel would further submit that the organization run by the petitioner has been conducting various demonstration and meeting across Tamil Nadu questioning the various actions of the Government and that is the reason why the second respondent has rejected the permission for conducting the conference.
4. The learned Additional Advocate General representing the second respondent would submit that the petitioner organization is not a law abiding body. Various criminal cases are pending for illegal activities and indulging in criminal activities by the members belonging to the petitioner organization. He would further submit that when permission was granted by this court on an earlier occasion on 16.05.2018 to conduct the meeting, the speakers in the meeting made inflammatory statements defaming the authorities, Government and also the Court. Since the petitioner organization did not comply with the conditions imposed by this court, a case was registered in crime no.583 of 2018 for various offences against the petitioner organization.
5. A Counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent in this writ petition. It will be relevant to extract certain portions of the counter affidavit for better appreciation.
?..(iv) Like wise when the public meeting was conducted by them on 20.06.2018 near Panchavarnasamy Temple, Woraiyur with the permission of this Hon'ble High Court Madras at Madurai Bench in WP(MD) No.11003/18 Dt.16.05.2018, the speech of the speakers was such that the objectionable, defaming the authorities and including the public to act against the state. The Hon'ble High Court ordered to consider the petition and made some instructions to be followed by the members of the organization which were not followed by the petitioner's organization by they acted against law. The petitioner spoke ? ,e;j muR fl;;likg;gy ve;j mjpfhhp te;jhYk; rhp> ve;j murpay;thjp te;jhYk; rhp> ve;j ePjpgjp te;jhYk; rhp> ve;j fnyf;lh; te;jhYk; rhp> fhh;g;gNul; KjyhspfSf;F Nrit nra;af;$ba mtq;fNshl eyid ghJfhf;Fwj;Jf;fhf jhd; ,e;j muR fl;likg;G ,Uf;F? The another person Velu Gunaventhan, who participated in that public meeting spoke ?kf;fs; vg;gb mg;gbNa Rk;kh ,Ug;ghd;> eP Rl;Lfpl;Nl ,Ug;g> mtd; Rk;khNt ,Ug;ghdh? clNd cd; Jg;ghf;fpNa gpLq;fp jpUk;g Rl Muk;gpr;RLthd;. jpUk;g vd;d gz;Zthd; ehyQ;R Ngh; Nrh;e;J xU NghyP];rpl;l ,Uf;fpw Jg;ghf;fpa gpLq;fp jpUk;g mNj NghyPir Rl;LUNthk; mg;bd;D Rl;Ll;Ld;dh? So, a case was registered in Woraiyur PS Crime No.583/18 U/s.153,153(A),(B),IPC and 41(6) of Madras City Police Act and the same is under investigation.
15. It is submitted that following cases were registered in Trichirapalli city in the past against the members of petitioner's organization for causing disturbance to the public and hindrance to traffic, damages to public properties and prevention of public servant from discharging duty during demonstrations and other agitations.
S.No PS Limit Cr.No.& Section Date SOC 1 Woariyur 497/16u/s.143,188 IPC @143,353 IPC 12.08.2018 Near Pancharvarnaswamy Temple 2 Cantonment 489/16 u/s.151 Cr.P.C 30.08.2016 Near Vazhlividu Murugan Temple 3 Cantonment 575/16 u/s.151 Cr.P.C 04.10.2016 Near Periyar Statue, Central Bus Stand 4 Cantonment 613/16 u/s.151 Cr.P.C 18.10.2016 Near Viralimalai junction 5 Cantonment 804/16 u/s.151 Cr.P.C 01.06.2017 Near Periyar statue, Central Bus stand 6 Cantonment 1848/16 u/s.151 Cr.P.C 06.11.2017 Near Peiryar Stature, Central Bus Stand 7 Cantonment 290/18 u/s.151 Cr.P.C 17.02.2018 Near Head Post Office 8 Cantonment 518/18 U/s.143,290,353,341 IPC r/w.41(b)(A) of TNCP ACt 24.03.2018 Near Head Post Office 9 Cantonment 628/18 u/s.153(A),506,505(a)(b)r/w.34 IPC 11.04.2018 Near Head Post Office.(24.03.2018) 10 Thillai Nagar 155/18 u/s.143,290,341,353 IPC r/w.41(6)(a)of TNCP Act & 3 of TNPPDL Act 07.04.2018 Hindi Pracharasabha, Thillai Nagar 11 Woraiyur 583/18 U/s.153,153(A)(B)IPC & 41 (6) TNCP Act 18.08.2018 Panjavarna Samy Kovil, St. Woraiyur
16. Similarly, 3 cases have been registered in Trichirapalli District Police Stations also against the members of petitioner's organization as follows:
S.No PS Limit Cr.No and Section Date SOC 1 Sirunangar 233/17 u/s.143,188 IPC 28.05.2017 Near Rettimangudi Junction 2 Manapparai 17/17 u/d.151Cr.P.C 15.03.2017 Near Periyar Statue, Manapparai 3 Lalgudi 116/18, u/s.143,188, 341 IPC 09.04.2018 Near Lalgudi Rly Station
17. Further several cases have been registered against members of petitioner's organization in other district of the state. A total number of 48 cases have been registered in the District of Cuddalore (6), Villupuram (1), Nagapattinam(8),Thanjavur(1),Thiruvarur(2),Pudukottai(1), Thoothukudi(24) Madurai City (3), Tirunelveli City(1) and Chennai City (1) against members of petitioner's organization for violating law.
18. The petitioner's organization has come to adverse notice on several occasions and has indulged in anti-government activities and created law and order problem repeatedly.
19. Similarly, cases have been registered in Trichirapalli City Police stations against the members of Petitioner's organization as follows:
S.No PS Limit Cr.No and Section Date 1 Cantonment 1389/18 u/s.4 of 4 (A)(1-A) TNOPPD Act 15.08.2018 2 Cantonment 1390/18 u/s.4 of 4 (A)(1-A) TNOPPD Act 15.08.2018 3 Sessions Court 463/18 u/s.4 of 4 (A)(1-A) TNOPPD Act 15.08.2018 4 Sessions Court 464/18 u/s.4 of 4 (A)(1-A) TNOPPD Act 15.08.2018 5 K.K.Nagar 452/18 u/s.4 of 4 (A)(1-A) TNOPPD Act 15.08.2018 6 Fort 733/18 u/s.4 of 4 (A)(1-A) TNOPPD Act 15.08.2018 7 Woraiyur 575/18 u/s.4 of 4 (A)(1-A) TNOPPD Act 15.08.2018 8 GH PS 291/18 u/s.4 of 4 (A)(1-A) TNOPPD Act 15.08.2018 9 Thillai Nagar 437/18 u/s.4 of 4 (A)(1-A) TNOPPD Act 15.08.2018
6. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and also materials placed on record.
7. This Court is of the considered view that the second respondent has taken into consideration the entire facts of the case and has given a detailed reasoning in his impugned proceedings dated 21.08.2018 as to why permission is rejected.
8. It is true that in a democratic country right of freedom speech and expression is a fundamental right. But however it carries with it a responsibility and the manner in which a person expresses himself. In the name of freedom, if organizations are permitted to speak whatever they want to without maintaining any decency or public order, permitting such organization to conduct meetings, will result in abuse of the freedom guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India.
9. It is well settled position of law that the enforcing authorities are the best judge for meeting a situation prevailing in a particular locality based on which appropriate decision is to be taken for granting permission to conduct meeting in a public place or at a particular time. It is seen from records that various criminal cases have been filed against the members of the organization and the police taking into consideration the overall situation have thought it fit to reject the permission sought for by the petitioner.
10. The learned Additional Advocate General had submitted that the permission that was granted earlier by this Court with condition was also flouted by this organization and the police have the recorded version of what was spoken in the earlier meeting which resulted in the registration of the First Information Report in crime No. 583 of 2018.
11. This Court is of the considered view that there is no illegality in the order passed by the second respondent and the second respondent has taken into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also the criminal antecedents of the members of the organization. The respondent police is the best judge to assess the situation prevailing in the particular area. This court cannot interfere with such a decision, unless this court finds that the permission has been denied for some frivolous reasons or on a general ground of law and order problem.
12. In view of the above, this Court does not find any merits in the writ petition. Accordingly the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No Costs.
To
1. The Commissioner of Police O/o. Commissioner of Police Trichy
2. The Assistant Commissioner of Police O/o.The Assistant Commissioner of Police Sri Rangam Region Trichy
3. The Inspector of Police(Law and Order) Uraiyur Police Station Trichy District .