Bode Ramachandra vs The State Of Ap
2024 Latest Caselaw 1083 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Bode Ramachandra vs The State Of Ap on 9 February, 2024

Author: R. Raghunandan Rao

Bench: R. Raghunandan Rao

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                      &
            HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

                    WRIT APPEAL No.122 of 2024

 Between:

 Bode Ramachandra, S/o. B. Muneppa,
 R/o. 6-108/2, KK Palayam, Punganur,
 Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh - 517247.
                                                              ...Appellant
                                    Versus
 The State of Andhra Pradesh,
 Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
 Department of Home,
 Secretariat, Velagapudi,
 Guntur District and 3 others.
                                                            ...Respondents
 Counsel for Appellant                : Sri K.S. Murthy, Sr. Counsel
                                          Representing Sri N. Ashwani
                                          Kumar

 Counsel for respondents 1 to 4        : T.M.K. Chaitanya
                                         G.P. for Home

                            Dt.: 09.02.2024
 JUDGMENT:

(per Hon‟ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

Heard Sri K.S. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri

N. Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and

Learned Government Pleader for Home, appearing for the

respondents.

HCJ & RRR, J

2. The appellant, who is the national president of a

registered political party, viz., "Bharata Chaitanya Yuvajana Party",

had sought to conduct a meeting on 04.02.2024 at Punganur

Chaitanya Vedika, Punganur - Chowdepalli Road, Chadalla,

Punganur Mandal. The appellant, applied to the 3rd respondent for

permission to conduct a meeting, by a representation dated

02.01.2024. This application was rejected by the 3rd respondent,

through his proceedings vide C.No.01/Mike/SDPO(P)/2024, dated

10.01.2024. Aggrieved by the said order of rejection, the appellant

moved this Court by way of W.P.No.2350 of 2024.

3. The appellant, relying upon an earlier order of this Court

dated 14.12.2023 in W.P.No.32901 of 2023, had sought a similar

order to be passed.

4. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by an order dated

02.02.2024, disposed of the writ petition with the following

directions.

"i. The petitioner shall immediately move an application before the 2nd and the 3rd respondents for permission to conduct the meeting.

ii. This application shall set out the number of persons expected to attend, the arrangements being made for conduct of the meeting including the usage of loud speakers, etc. HCJ & RRR, J

iii. The petitioner shall also give an undertaking along with the application that the said meeting would be held peacefully and without any disturbance to the public order. iv. The petitioner shall also give an undertaking along with the application that the meeting will be conducted for the purpose, which is indicated in the application without any deviation.

v. Upon receiving such application, the 2nd and the 3rd respondents shall forthwith pass orders accepting or rejecting the said application.

vi. The said application shall not be rejected except on specific grounds of obstruction of traffic or free movement of people or on the ground of a specific problem relating to public order in the area.

viii. In the event of the petitioner filing the application, the 2nd and the 3rd respondents shall communicate the decision to the petitioner immediately."

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed the

present writ appeal.

6. Sri K.S. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri

N. Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit

that the order dated 10.01.2024 is not in accordance with Section 30

of the Police Act, 1861 (for short „the Act‟), as interpreted by a

Division Bench of this Court in Kaka Ramakrishna vs. The State of

Andhra Pradesh and Ors.,1. Sri K.S. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel

would draw the attention of this Court to the reasons given in the

2023 (4) ALT 232 HCJ & RRR, J

order of rejection. The 3rd respondent, in the order dated 10.01.2024,

had stated that the application of the appellant was being rejected as

the appellant had not given the details of the places from where the

people are being mobilized/attending the meeting, the mode of

transport used for bringing those people, the number of vehicles that

are sought to be used, the place where the vehicles would be parked,

the Aadhar cards of the persons attending the meeting are collected

or not, whether any identity cards or passes are issued to them or

not, and all the details for conducting of proposed meeting should be

given. Apart from this, the 3rd respondent also stated that the

proposed land for the proposed meeting, the dias, parking and lunch

is sought to be arranged in Ac.1.27 cents only, which would not be

sufficient to conduct the proposed meeting if more persons attended

and that no parking place for vehicles has been shown.

7. The 3rd respondent held that these defects and the fact

that the meeting would affect the passage of vehicles and the

movement of pilgrims going to Tirumala, as sufficient grounds to

refuse permission and had rejected the application.

8. Sri K.S. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel, would contend

that none of the reasons mentioned above are valid. He would draw

the notice of the court to the condition requiring the petitioner to

furnish the Aadhar cards of the probable participants in the meeting, HCJ & RRR, J

to show that the order of rejection is arbitrary, by imposing a

condition, which cannot be fulfilled. He would further contend that

the said reasons do not fall within the ambit of Section 30 of the Act.

He contends that the power to regulate meetings is given to the police

under the provisions of Sections 30, 30A and 31 of the Act. He would

submit that these provisions only permit regulation of public

assemblies and processions and the said provisions do not empower

the police authorities to ban the public assemblies or meetings. He

would rely upon paragraphs 18, 19 and 20 of the judgment of the

Division Bench of this Court in Kaka Ramakrishna vs. The State of

Andhra Pradesh and Ors., which read as follows:

18) Therefore, a plain language interpretation of Section 30(1) to (4) makes it very clear that the Police Act only gives the power to the authorities to regulate the conduct of assemblies, processions etc., on public roads or thoroughfares. If the officer concerned is of the opinion that the assembly, procession may cause a breach of peace, he may ask the organizers to apply for a license, and prescribe the conditions under which the meeting or procession can be held. It is clear that the sections recognize the fact that if the officer concerned is of the opinion that there is no likelihood of breach of peace etc., he cannot insist on a license or on permission being obtained. The requirement of obtaining a license is to be preceded by the formation of an opinion of the officer that there may be a breach of peace etc. Under Section 30-A the Magistrate or the Superintendent etc., or any other officer HCJ & RRR, J

can stop the procession and can order the assembly to disperse if there is a violation of the conditions of license.

Section 31 is as follows:

31. Police to keep order on public roads, etc:- It shall be the duty of the police to keep order on the public roads, and in the public streets, thoroughfares, ghats and landing-places, and at all other places of public resort, and to prevent obstruction on the occasions of assemblies and processions on the public roads and in the public streets, or in the neighbourhood of places of worship, during the time of public worship, and in any case when any road, street, thoroughfare, ghat or landing-place may be thronged or may be liable to be obstructed."

19) This section also gives the power to prevent obstructions of public roads and public streets in case of obstruction due to assemblies, processions etc.

20) Thus, on a plain language interpretation of these sections, which are referred to above, (and which form the Bedrock of the impugned G.O.), it is clear that the power given to the police or to the Magistrate is only to regulate the conduct of assemblies, processions etc., more so when they are likely to obstruct /block the roads etc. In this Court‟s opinion, the right to assemble peacefully, the right to protest peacefully in streets, public places, thoroughfares etc. cannot be restricted totally by virtue of these sections of law."

9. He would submit that the appellant, after rejection of his

application dated 02.01.2024 by the 3rd respondent, had given a

representation dated 03.02.2024 to the 2nd respondent in which he

had stated that about 500 to 600 people were expected to attend the HCJ & RRR, J

meeting and that he had rescheduled the meeting to 11.02.2024 and

necessary arrangements of ambulance and loud speakers for

conducting the meeting had also been arranged. Sri K.S. Murthy,

learned Senior Counsel would submit that in such circumstances, the

respondents cannot reject the request of the appellant and can only

grant permission by stipulating conditions, which would be within

the ambit of Sections 30, 30A and 31 of the Act, as interpreted by the

Division Bench of this Court.

10. Sri K.S. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel would contend

that the directions of the learned Single Judge permitting the

respondents to reject the application of the appellant would not be in

consonance with the observations of the Division Bench of this Court

in Kaka Ramakrishna vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh.

11. Sri T.M.K. Chaitanya, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents would submit that the appellant, having made a fresh

representation, should have awaited the decision of the respondents

and should not have rushed to this Court in the present manner. He

would further submit that the respondents would also be entitled to

stop all such meetings and public assemblies, which would endanger

public order or would affect the movement of the people in the area.

12. The judgment of the Division Bench in Kaka

Ramakrishna vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, as extracted above, HCJ & RRR, J

lays down that the provisions of Sections 30, 30A and 31 of the Act

do not empower the police authorities to ban public assemblies or

meetings. The said provisions can only be used to regulate the

conduct of such meetings and in the event of any violation of such

conditions, it would be open to the police authorities to stop such

public assemblies or procession.

13. In view of the finding that the police authorities can only

regulate the conduct of such public meetings or assemblies, this writ

appeal is disposed of with the following directions:

1. The 3rd respondent, who is the competent authority, shall

consider the representation of the appellant dated 03.02.2024,

addressed to the 2nd respondent, and pass orders on the said

representation.

2. The appellant shall also have the liberty to change the date of

the meeting from 11.02.2024 to any other date convenient for

the appellant.

3. The directions stipulated by the learned Single Judge, in her

order, viz., direction No.3 and 4, shall be complied by the

appellant.

4. The 3rd respondent, while disposing of the application of the

appellant, shall stipulate the conditions for conduct of the HCJ & RRR, J

public meeting, which shall be scrupulously followed by the

appellant.

There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending

miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

JS HCJ & RRR, J

HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

(per Hon‟ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao)

9th February, 2024 JS