Paruchuri Rajendra Babu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 317 AP

            hHIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
                      MAIN CASE No.W.P.No.1181 of 2023
                                       PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.No     DATE                                                                   Office
                                              ORDER

Note 19.01.2023 RRR, J

The petitioner is said to be the State President of Andhra Pradesh, of a Student Organization. This organization is proposing to organize a peaceful bus yatra starting on 20.01.2023 from Hindupur to Srikakulam and ending on 04.02.2023. The said bus yatra was to be performed by about 40 members of various student organizations going in one bus. The said bus yatra was for the purpose of holding public meetings in universities and PG Centres to set out their anguish relating to non-grant of Special Status to the State of Andhra Pradesh and non-fulfillment of the promises made at the time of bifurcation of the State.

The petitioner, for the purpose of conduct of the said bus yatra, had filed representations before the 2nd respondent-Director General of Police on 05.01.2023 and 17.01.2023 for granting permission for conduct of peaceful bus yatra as well as various meetings, whose details were set out in the paper attached to the application for permission.

As the 2nd respondent was not passing any orders on these two representations, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition for a direction to the 2nd respondent to pass necessary orders in accordance with law laid down by this Court in its order dated 15.12.2021 in the case of Amaravathi Parirakshana Samithi of A.P. and Ors., vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.,1.

When the matter was called in the afternoon, both sides have represented that the 2nd respondent had conveyed to the petitioner in the afternoon, a letter dated 17.01.2023, in which the 2nd respondent is said to have requested the petitioner to approach the concerned Superintendents of Police of the Districts through which the bus yatra was to be conducted.

Sri K.S. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Chalasani Venkat, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 2nd respondent would be the appropriate authority to decide on the question of grant of permission / licence for the said bus yatra as the bus yatra is to go through various districts of Andhra Pradesh and it would not be within the where with all of the petitioner to approach each Superintendent of Police

2022 (2) ALD 11 = 2022 (1) ALT 181

separately. He would further submit that the 2nd respondent would be the appropriate authority to take a holistic view of the entire event and pass necessary orders.

Sri K.S. Murthy would also submit that the said bus yatra is not a procession of people going on a padayatra but movement of about 40 persons in one bus. He would further submit that the public meetings that are sought to be conducted during this bus yatra are meetings that would be held within universities or PG Centres and the participants of the bus yatra would address the said public meetings only for the purpose of highlighting the need for recognition of special status for the State of Andhra Pradesh and the need for the promises made at the time of bifurcation to be fulfilled. He submits that the said bus yatra would be entirely peaceful and would not cause any law and order problems.

Sri T.M.K. Chaitanya, learned Government Pleader for Home-II would submit that the provisions applicable to the present case is Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861. He would submit that the said provision requires permission to be obtained from the Superintendent of Police of the District and it would only be appropriate that necessary applications are made to the Superintendents of

Police of each District thorough which from which the bus yatra is proposed to be conducted.

Section 30 of the Police Act reads as follows:

"30. Regulation of public assemblies and processions and licensing of the same:-

(l) The District Superintendent or Assistant District Superintendent of Police may, as occasion required, 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 times at which, such processions may pass.

(2) He may also, on being satisfied that it is intended by any persons or class of persons to convene or collect an assembly in any such road, street or thoroughfare, or to form a procession which would, in the judgment of the Magistrate of the district, or of the sub-division of a district, if uncontrolled, be likely to cause a breach of the peace, 1 Ins. by Act No.8 of 1895, sec. 9. 2 Subs. by Act No.8 of 1895, sec. 10, for the original section. 13 The Police Act, 1861, require by general or special notice that the persons convening or collecting such assembly or directing or promoting such procession shall apply for a license.

(3) On such application being made, he may issue a license, specifying the names of the licensees and defining the conditions on which

alone such assembly or such procession is to be permitted to take place, and otherwise giving effect to this section: Provided that no fee shall be charged on the application for, or grant of any such license.

(4) Music in the streets:- He may also regulate the extent to which music may be used in streets on the occasion of festivals and ceremonies."

Section 30(1) stipulates that the District Superintendent or Assistant District Superintendent of Police depending upon the situation, may pass orders directing the manner in which assemblies and processions are to be conducted on the public roads, or in the public streets or thoroughfares, and prescribe the routes by which, and the times at which, such processions may pass.

Section 30(2) empowers the said officers, upon being satisfied that any procession or assembly in an area could lead to breach of peace, to require by general or special notice, that persons convening such assembly or directing or promoting such procession to apply for a licence.

Section 30(3) provides that on such application being made, the concerned officer may issue a licence specifying the persons, who can participate in the said procession or assembly and set conditions on which such assembly or procession

is to be conducted.

A perusal of the above provision reveals that permission for conduct of a procession or assembly is required to be obtained from the said officers only when such officers have held declare the necessity of a requirement for such permission to be obtained.

In the present case, the question of whether such requirement has been put in place or not is a open question.

Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner has approached the 2nd respondent on the understanding that Section 30 of the Police Act requires him to obtain permission. The 2nd respondent has refused such permission on the ground that the petitioner should approach various Superintendents of Police. To the mind of this Court, such a direction would place a huge burden on the petitioner to obtain such permissions. Further, it would only be appropriate that it is the 2nd respondent who decides on such procession and public meetings to be held from one end of the State to the other end of the State.

The objection of Sri T.M.K. Chaitanya, that such permissions cannot be granted by the 2nd respondent as Section 30 of the Police Act requires

permissions from the Superintendents of Police remains.

Section 4 of the Police Act states that the Inspector General of Police (who would be the equivalent of the 2nd respondent) is the person in whom the administration of the Police throughout the State would be vested.

Section 5 of the Police Act grants the Inspector General of Police, all the powers of a Magistrate throughout the general police-district, which should be exercised subject to such limitation as may be placed by the State Government. This would mean that the Director General of Police would be entitled to exercise all the functions and powers of a Superintendent of Police in a District.

For the aforesaid reasons, it would only be appropriate that the 2nd respondent takes a view on the application of the petitioner for conduct of a bus yatra.

Consequently, there shall be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass necessary orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 05.01.2023 with such modification as may be necessary on account of the fact that the procession was to start from tomorrow and cannot start as necessary approvals are not yet been given.

The 2nd respondent shall complete this exercise of grant of permission within a period of four days from today.

Post on 25.01.2023 in motion list.

_________ RRR, J Note:-

Issue C.C. today, B/o JS