Madras High Court
The Superintendent Of Police vs Shantha Kumar on 2 August, 2022
W.A.(MD)No.798 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 02.08.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.A(MD)No.798 of 2022
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.6785 of 2022
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Sivakasi Sub Division, Sivakasi.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Sivakasi Town Police Station,
Sivakasi. ... Appellants
Vs.
Shantha Kumar ... Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent to set
aside the order order of this Court, dated 28.07.2022 in W.P.(MD)No.
16398 of 2022.
For Appellants :Mr.Veera Kathiravan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
For Respondent :Mr.K.Govindarajan
***
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.798 of 2022
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.S.SUNDAR, J.)
This Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 28.07.2022,
passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court allowing the Writ
Petition in W.P.(MD)No.16398 of 2022, filed by the respondent/Writ
Petitioner, by setting aside the order impugned in the Writ Petition dated
23.07.2022 and directing the second appellant to pass appropriate orders
based on the guidelines issued by the Director General of Police, dated
09.04.2019, and to grant permission and police protection for the
padhayathra organised by the respondent/Writ Petitioner.
2.Heard Mr.Veera Kathiravan, learned Additional Advocate
General, assisted by Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for the appellants and Mr.K.Govindarajan, learned
Counsel, who takes notice on behalf of the respondent. By consent of
both parties, the above Writ Appeal is taken up for final disposal at the
admission stage itself.
3.The respondent is the Virudhunagar West District Advocates
Wing President of a national political party. It appears that he organised
a padhayathra with 1000 of his party members to give petition to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.798 of 2022
District Collector, Virudhunagar, expressing their grievance regarding
the delay in implementation of Textile Park project in Virudhunagar
District. It is seen that the representation of the respondent seeking
permission to conduct padhayathra was earlier rejected and challenging
the same, the respondent filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.16164 of
2022. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by order, dated 22.07.2022
in the following lines:
“7.In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to give a
fresh representation as mentioned above to the second respondent. On
receipt of such representation, the second respondent shall consider the
same based on the circular of the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu,
Chennai, in Rc.007301/Genl.I(1)/2019, dated 09.04.2019 and grant
permission.”
4.Thereafter, a fresh representation was submitted by the
respondent seeking permission and police protection for the
padhayathra covering a distance of 27 km., starting from Sivakasi Sivan
Kovil to District Collectorate, Virudhunagar. The said representation was
also rejected by the second appellant vide order impugned in the Writ
Petition. While rejecting the representation of the respondent, the
second appellant has given certain reasons. The apprehension expressed
by the second appellant, as seen from the order impugned in the Writ
Petition, dated 20.07.2022, is in the following lines:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.798 of 2022
“mt;thW jhq;fs; fhiy 09.00 kzpf;F 1>000 fl;rp
njhz;lh;fSld; eil gazkhf rptfhrp khefiu fle;J
nry;Yk; NghJ> mjpfkhd Nghf;Ftuj;J nehpry; Vw;gLk;.
rptfhrpapy; ,Ue;J tpUJefh; tiu nry;Yk; rhiyahdJ Fwfpa
ghijahfTk;> rhiy eLNt jLg;Gfs;
VJk; ,y;yhkYk; ,Ug;gjhy;> kpFe;j Nghf;Ftuj;J nehpry;
Vw;gLk;. rptfhrp khefuk; njhopw;rhiyfs; kpFe;j gFjp
vd;gjhy; fduf thfdq;fs; mjpfstpy; te;J nry;Yk;. NkYk;>
mNj rhiyapy; cs;s rptfhrp ,e;J Njtkhh; Nky;epiyg;
gs;sp> fhh;Ndrd; ngz;fs; Nky;epiyg; gs;sp> v];.vg;.Mh;
ghypnlf;dpf; fy;Y}hp> jpUj;jq;fy; muR Nky;epiyg; gs;sp>
murd; fNzrd; ghypnlf;dpf; fy;Y}hp> yad;]; nkl;hpf;
Nky;epiyg; gs;sp> AAA nghwpapay; fy;Y}hp> kw;Wk; =tpj;ah
nghwpapay; fy;Y}hp> Mfpatw;wpw;F mjpfstpy; khzt>
khztpah; nry;thh;fs; vd;gjhy; kpFe;j thfd Nghf;Ftuj;J
nehpry; Vw;gLk; kUj;Jt mtru cjtpf;F nry;Yk; Mk;Gyd;];
thfdq;fspd; Nghf;Ftuj;jpw;Fk; jil Vw;gl tha;g;Gs;sJ.”
5.Challenging the same, the respondent filed a Writ Petition in
W.P.(MD)No.16398 of 2022, mainly on the ground that the impugned
order contains false and baseless narrative, as if the respondent had
agreed to conduct procession only with 10 persons during the arguments
before the learned Single Judge in the earlier Writ Petition. Since
padhayathra was organised highlighting a demand for implementation of
a project in public interest to create awareness among the public, it is
stated by the respondent that there won't be any law and order problem,
as no prudent person will oppose the idea of procession. It is stated that
the fundamental rights to freedom of speech and expression and right to
assemble peacefully, which are guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a) and
(b) of Constitution of India, are violated by denying permission to the
respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.798 of 2022
6.The said Writ Petition was allowed by the learned Single
Judge, as the learned Single Judge was of the view that the proposed
padhayathra can be permitted with the condition that the respondent can
conduct awareness walk on the one side of the road without obstructing
the traffic. Paragraph 16 of the order reads as follows:
“16.In view of the above, the impugned order passed in
Namuna.No.273/Kaa.Thu.Ka/Siva/2022, dated 23.07.2022, is hereby set
aside and the petitioner is at liberty to give a fresh representation to the
second respondent, fix a date for the proposed Padhayathra and also give
an undertaking stating that they will conduct the Padhayathra-awareness
Walk without causing any inconvenience to the general public. The second
respondent is also directed to pass appropriate orders based on the
guidelines issued by the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai,
in Rc.007301/Genl.I(1)/2019, dated 09.04.2019, grant permission and
police protection for the Padhayathra.”
7.Challenging the said order, the present Writ Appeal is filed by
the appellants/law enforcing agencies of the State.
8.The grievance of the appellants is that the learned Single
Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that the procession/awareness
walk with the distance of 27 km., with 1000 people will affect the free
flow of traffic and the entire district and the law enforcing agency will be
put to unbearable hardship apart from the inconvenience caused to the
public. The appellants highlighted the possibility of inconvenience that
would be caused to the public by allowing the procession covering a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.798 of 2022
distance of 27 km., with 1000 people.
9.The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the
learned Single Judge has failed to consider the facts and details furnished
by the appellants in the counter affidavit, particularly, in paragraph 11
and 12 of the counter affidavit. He further submitted that the learned
Single Judge has passed the order with a positive direction to the second
appellant to grant permission, without considering the facts projected by
the appellants and the reasons as to why the respondent cannot be
granted permission to conduct procession or padhayathra, as proposed.
10.The learned Counsel for the respondent, however, submitted
that the procession of 1000 people from Sivakasi Sivan Koil to
Virudhunagar covering a distance of 27 km was planned by the
respondent long back. It is submitted that only on account of the naive
attitude of second appellant at every stage, the respondent was unable to
conduct the event even though all arrangements were made on the
earlier occasions. Referring to the previous order passed by the
appellants on the representation of the respondent earlier, the learned
Counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellants have rejected
the representation for extraneous reasons. The learned Counsel for the
respondent then submitted that the respondent, being a member of a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.798 of 2022
national party, has taken all safety measures and denying permission for
the procession will be unconstitutional as being violative of fundamental
rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a) and (b) of Constitution of India.
11.This Court considered the submissions of both parties. A
procession of 1000 people covering a distance of 27 km., as it was
organised by the respondent, is not an ordinary procession, especially
having regard to the distance to be covered during school hours in the
morning, which will certainly cause hindrance to the public and affect the
free flow of traffic. The inconvenience that may be caused to the public
cannot be lost sight of. It is stated by the appellants that several
educational institutions are located in the path of procession and that the
proposed procession covering 17 villages with 1000 people is
unprecedented. The procession with 1000 participants for a length of 27
km., at a stretch, is practically impossible without blocking the road and
causing hindrance to traffic. In fact, it may not be even possible to cover
the distance of 27 km., within a day.
12.In the said circumstances, this Court is of the view that the
request seeking permission to conduct a procession with 1000 people
covering a distance of 27 km., cannot be appreciated. However, this
Court while hearing the case, suggested the learned Counsel for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.798 of 2022
respondent to reduce the distance and the members, so that the
inconvenience, that may be caused to the public, will be minimised and
the police officials can handle the situation more efficiently to avoid any
inconvenience that may be caused to the public. The learned Counsel for
the respondent agrees to reduce the distance to 2 km from the starting
point and reduce the participants from 1000 to 300. The learned
Additional Advocate General also fairly agrees for the same after
consulting the officials, who are present in the Court at the time of
hearing.
13.However, the learned Additional Advocate General expressed
some difficulties, as regards the movement of vehicles carrying the 300
persons, after the completion of padhayathra covering the distance of
2 km from the starting point. He wanted an assurance from the
respondent that the 300 people, who participated in the padhayathra,
will move forward using minimum vehicles.
14.Though the programme was organized and scheduled to be
commenced today at 09.00 am, in view of the filing of this appeal, this
Court understand that the appellants have informed the respondent that
permission will be subject to the outcome of this Writ Appeal. In these
circumstances, we understand that the organisers were put in a dilemma
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.798 of 2022
or precarious position whether to conduct procession today or to
postpone the same. It is represented that procession has not taken place
in view of the fact that permission was not officially granted, despite the
direction of the learned Single Judge. In such circumstances, in the
interest of justice, this Court is inclined to pass the following directions:
(1)The second appellant is directed to grant permission to the
respondent to the proposed procession that is now re-scheduled to be
conducted on 06.08.2022 with the reduced strength of 300 people
covering the distance of 2 km., from the starting point, as it was
proposed earlier. The point, at which the procession should rest, should
be indicated by marking the place, which should not be more than two
km.
(2)The respondent should organise the procession noting down
the names of participants asfar as possible. The procession on
06.08.2022 should commence between 09.30 am and 10.00 am and
should be completed by reaching destination within three hours. The
participants of procession shall use only one side of the road.
(3)It is open to the second appellant to give proper instruction
to the respondent and it is open to the second appellant to put any
reasonable conditions, which should be purely in the interest of public to
avoid any inconvenience to the public and law and order issues.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.798 of 2022
(4)The appellants should give adequate police protection to the
participants of procession and others at destination till the organisers
meet the District Collector with the group of members or representatives
not more than 10.
(5)The respondent is expected to send vehicles well in advance
to the place in which the procession should end, so that the vehicles will
not follow the procession to avoid further congestion to the traffic.
15.The order of learned Single Judge is modified to the extent
indicated above. This order cannot be cited as a precedent for any case,
as each case will be decided on its own merits. The Writ Appeal is
disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
[S.S.S.R., J.] [S.S.Y., J.]
02.08.2022
Index : Yes / No
cmr
Note: Issue order copy by 03.08.2022.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.798 of 2022
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
and
S.SRIMATHY, J.
cmr
W.A(MD)No.798 of 2022
02.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
