Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The licence to hold the dewan at the place was required under Section 30 of the Police Act. 1861' (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The appellants were also refused permission to use loudspeaker under the Punjab Instruments (Control of Noises) Act. 1956. Section 30 of the Act is in the following words:

30. Regulation of public assemblies and processions and licensing of same. The District Superintendent or Assistant District Superintendent of Police mav, as occasion requires, direct the conduct of all assemblies and processions on the public roads or in the public streets or thoroughfares, and prescribe the routes by which and the time, at which, such processions mav pass.
7. No public meeting with or without loudspeaker, shall be held on the public street within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City, unless the necessary permission in writing has been obtained from the officer authorised) by the Commissioner of Police.

It was observed that Section 33(1)(o) authorises the making of rule for 'regulating' the conduct, behaviour or action of the persons who are members thereof. Rule 7 impliedlv gives power to the Commissioner to refuse permission to hold a T>ublic meeting and, when a meeting is prohibited, there is no question of regulating the conduct, behaviour or action of persons constituting assembily, as exhypothesis, no assembly has been constituted. The sub-section does not authorise framing of rules to regulate the conduct, behaviour or action of persona before an assembly is constituted.

6. Shri Hardev Singh, the learned counsel for the appellants, has then strenuously argued that the appellants-have a fundamental right under Article 19(1) (a) and (b) and Article 25 of the Constitution of India to freedom of" speech and expression, to assemble peaceably and without arms at any place and to freely profess, practise and propagate their religion. This right ig not unfettered and absolute. According to Article 19 (2) and (3). reasonable restrictions can be imposed on the exercise of the riaht to freedom of speech and expression and to assemble peaceably and without arms in the interest of public order. Similarly, the freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion is subject to public order. If such a freedom endangers public order, the authorities will be within their rights to restrict that right. The appellants have filed copies of two orders passed bv the District Magistrate. Ambala. in 1963. One of the orders (cor/v Annexure 'G') recites that it had come to his notice that the rival parties intended to hold public meetings and processions on public roads. streets and thoroughfares in the area of Anaj Mandi (Grain "Market1) on the occasion of Bawan Dwadshi fair from 29-8-1963 to 31-8-1963. and on account of the intended meetings and processions of the rival parties there Was likelihood of the breach of the peace in case the meetings and processions were not properly regulated and controlled. He. therefore, directed that all persons who intended to organise such meetings or processions should apply for licence as reauired under Section 30(2) of the Act before holding such meetings qr processions. Anv such meeting or profession without licence would beconsiderea'unlawful and action would be taken in accordance with the provisions of law. Shri Mohan Singh Lamba, appellant filed an application requesting for a licence to hold a dewan on Bawan Dwadshi fair days outside Sri Guru Singh Sabha Northern Maidan. That application was refused on the ground that the agreement referred to in the-application with the Sanatan Dharam Sabha. Ambala City, had been withdrawn by that organisation; the application, bv implication admitted that the customary right of holding the Bawan Dwadshi Mela in Anai Mandi area vested in the Sanatan Dharam Sabha, Ambala City, alone and, in view of the .prevailing tension between Hindu and Sikh Communities in Ambala City, and 'to prevent anv conseauent breach of peace, he regretted his inability to issue a licence for holding anv dewan in the Anai Mandi area, Ambala City, on the Bawan Dwadshi fair from 29th tq, 31st August, 1963. The applicant wag, however, permitted to hold such a dewan anywhere else so that there was no danger of breach of peace. Similar reply was given to Shri Kartar Singh Tak-kar appellant who applied for the licence to hold a dewan from August 29 to Aueust 31. 1963. the dates on which the Bawan Dwadshi fair was to be held. For the subsequent vearg also, the permission to hold the dewan and to use loudspeakers on the days of Bawan . Dwadshi fair was refused. It is thus clear that the particular reason stated bv the District Magistrate for refusing the licence was that there was apprehension of breach of neace if the Sikhs were allowed to hold a dewan on the Bawan Dwadshi fair days at the site in front of the Gurdwara which was close to the site on which that fair was to be held. It has also been stated in the - written statement filed bv the District Magistrate in replv to the writ petition that no other Gurdwara in the entire States of Puniab and Haryana ever held such a dewan on Bawan Dwadshi fair days at anv place whatsoever which shows that there is no particular sanctitv of Bawan Dwadshi fair in the minds of the Sikh community. If they intend to honour the Bawan avtar, they can ioin the Hindus in their celebrations as before the partition of the country. It has also to be remembered that Gurdwara Singh Sabha was established in Anai Mandi after the partition of the countrv at the site where the tomb of Pir Lakhi Shah existed. It has no particular historical significance and in the citv of Ambala there are historical Gurdwaras. the management of which never thought of obserying Bawan Dwadshi festival.