Madras High Court
Unknown vs State Of H.P. And Ors on 18 October, 2022
W.M.P.No.25779 of 2022
Reserved on : 30.09.2022
Date of Verdict : 18.10.2022
W.M.P.No.25779 of 2022
in
Rev. Aplw.SR.No.108585 of 2022
in
W.P.No.24540 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
This petition has been filed to grant leave to prefer review
application against the common order dated 22.09.2022 passed in
W.P.No.24540 of 2022 etc., batch on the file of this Court.
2. The petitioners in W.P.No.24540 of 2022 etc., batch filed Writ
Petitions to permit them to conduct procession (route march) wearing their
uniform viz., dark olive green trousers, white shirt, cap, belt, black shoes, led by
a musical band in the respective route on 02.10.2022 and also to conduct public
meeting in pursuant to their respective representation. However, the respondents
2 to 5 herein failed to consider the same as such, they filed Writ Petitions to
direct them to grant permission to conduct procession and public meeting.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.M.P.No.25779 of 2022
3. This Court considered the rival submission and directed the
respondents 2 to 5 herein to grant permission to conduct procession and to
conduct public meeting on 02.10.2022 at various places subject to certain
conditions on or before 28.09.2022. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner
intended to file petition to review the order passed by this Court on various
grounds. However, the petitioner is not a party to the Writ Petitions and as such,
filed this present petition seeking leave to prefer review applications.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is the founder, President and Member of Viduthalai Chiruthaikal
Katchi and a Member of Parliament from Chidambaram constituency. He is also
Member of various organizations, which have been functioning for the cause of
general public. These organizations have been functioning for the past several
years to eradicate the communalism and bring the social harmony to the society.
4.1. He further submitted that the Writ Petitioners in W.P.No.24540 of
2022 etc., batch affiliated in the organization of Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh
(herein after referred to as “R.S.S.”) and approached this Court for permission
to conduct the procession and to conduct public meeting in order to celebrate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.M.P.No.25779 of 2022
75th year of Independence of our country, the birth centenary of Bharath Ratna
Dr.B.R.Ambedkar and Vijayadasamy at various places in different district in
Tamil Nadu. This Court by an order dated 22.09.2022, directed the respondents
2 to 5 herein to grant permission to conduct procession and to conduct public
meeting on 02.10.2022 with certain conditions.
4.2. However, the petitioner quoted various incidents and stated that
while the Writ Petitioners' organization conducted procession for the past several
years they were indulged in violence. They failed to follow the Indian culture
and they did not contribute to the nation building. They are trying to divide the
people by creating communal violence. RSS does not accept secularism.
Therefore, under the pretext of procession, the Writ Petitioners planned to
disrupt law and order and public peace. Hence, the petitioner's party invited the
public to participate in the social harmony procession to uphold the nation
integrity and dreams of Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Ambedkar. The social
harmony procession scheduled to be held on 02.10.2022 in all parts of Tamil
Nadu, thereby conduct a procession in various parts of Tamil Nadu and
therefore, the communal outfit from RSS will give trouble to them during rally. If
such situation arises, there will be a public disruption. Though this Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.M.P.No.25779 of 2022
directed to grant permission with certain conditions, the Writ Petitioners'
organization will not obey the conditions and high handedly act to disrupt the
public order by creating enmity between groups. Therefore, the petitioner filed
this petition to grant leave to review the order passed by this Court.
4.3. He further submitted the that Registry of this Court ought not to
have numbered the Writ Petitions as criminal. Mere inclusion of police
personnel doesn't mean that the Writ Petitions to be numbered under criminal.
Further, this Court ought to have considered the antecedents of the Writ
Petitioners' organization before granting permission to hold procession and
conduct public meeting, since they indulged in violence while carrying
procession which is against the interest of common public. The order passed by
this Court is in violation to the reasonable restrictions imposed under the Article
19(2) of the Constitution of India. However, the official respondents failed to
bring to the notice of this Court sequel to the prevailing situation in the various
district of Tamil Nadu which was triggered by the Writ Petitioners' organization.
4.4. He also submitted that this Court failed to consider the nexus
between the ideology of Dr.Ambedkar and the Vijayadasami, which was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.M.P.No.25779 of 2022
projected by the Writ Petitioners. The ideology nexus must have been taken into
account before granting such permission to hold procession and public meeting.
Further, 75th Anniversary of independence of celebration should have been
celebrated on 15th August, whereas the Writ Petitioners' organization planned
something with an ill motive to do wrong on the day of second October.
Therefore, this Court ought not to have granted permission on the ground
security of the State and public order stated in the reasonable restrictions
enumerated under Article 19(2) & (4) of the Constitution of India. In support of
his contention, he relied upon the following judgments :-
(i) C.W.P.No.7919 of 2010 – Aruna Sood Vs. State of H.P. and ors
dated 03.08.2011
(ii) W.A.SR.No.92091 of 2021 – Abirami Vs. The Superintendent of
Police and ors dated 15.12.2021
(iii) W.A.SR.No.79295 of 2021 – Ellora restaurant, rep by its
Proprietor vs. Commissioner of Police and anr - dated16.02.2022
(iv) (2017) 5 SCC 533 – Ram Kishan Funji Vs. State of Haryana and
ors.
(v) (2019) 9 SCC 154 – P.Surendran Vs. State by Inspector of Police.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.M.P.No.25779 of 2022
5. According to the petitioner, he is the founder, President of
Viduthalai Chiruthaikal Katchi (VCK) and a Member of Parliament from
Chidambaram constituency. The apprehension of the petitioner is that on the
permission granted by this Court, if the Writ Petitioners' organization permitted
to conduct procession and public meeting, they may indulged in violence while
carrying procession and they may disrupt law and order & public order.
Similarly, the petitioner party also invited the general public to participate in the
social harmony procession on the same day i.e., on 02.10.2022 and requested
permission from the concerned authority to conduct procession in various parts
of Tamil Nadu. Therefore, the communal outfit from the Writ Petitioners'
organization will give trouble to them during rally. If such situation arises, there
will be a public disruption. Further the petitioner's procession is entirely different
from the Writ Petitioners' procession and the RSS intended to hold in the guise
of Dr.Ambedkar and Mahatma Gandhi and 75th year of independence of our
country.
6. It is also seen that though this Court directed the respondents 2 to 5
herein to grant permission to conduct procession and public meeting to be held
on 02.10.2022 by an order dated 28.09.2022, all the representation submitted by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.M.P.No.25779 of 2022
the Writ Petitioners were rejected and refused to give permission by the
respondents 2 to 5 herein. Therefore, the Writ Petitioners approached this Court
by way of Contempt Petition in Cont.P.No.2111 of 2022 etc., and the same are
pending before this Court.
7. The only points for consideration in this petition is that,
(a) Whether the petitioner has locus to review the order passed by this
Court or not?
(b) Whether the petitioner raised sufficient grounds to make out a prima
facie case to find out any error apparent on the face of the order passed by this
Court to review the same?
8. Admittedly, the petitioner is not a party to the Writ Petitions. If at
all the petitioner had any grievances over the order passed by this Court, he can
very well file an appeal as against the order passed by this Court in the manner
known to law. The petitioner without preferring any appeal against the order
passed by this Court, he filed the Review Application to review the order passed
by this Court on the aforesaid grounds. In the Review Application, the petitioner
did not even whisper about the ground that the Registry of this Court ought not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.M.P.No.25779 of 2022
to have number the Writ Petitions under criminal, when the Writ Petitions are
consisting of civil rights.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the
Registry has no power to number the Writ Petitions under criminal. Mere
inclusion of police personnel doesn't mean that the Writ Petitions come under the
criminal. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment reported in
(2017) 5 SCC 533 in the case of Ram Kishan Fauji Vs. State of Haryana &
ors., in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that in a proceeding
under Article 226 of Constitution of India, consisting of civil rights, the
proceedings are civil in nature falling within the ambit of Clause 10 of the
Letters Patent. Further held that the said Writ Petition was filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the recommendation of the
Lakyukta and the said recommendation would have led to launching of criminal
prosecution. It was treated in Writ Petition criminal side. In such circumstances,
to hold that in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, has passed an order in a civil proceedings as the order that was challenged
was that of the quasi-judicial authority, i.e., Lokayukta, would be conceptually
fallacious. It is because what matters is the nature of the proceeding and that is
the litmus test. Whereas in the case on hand, the Writ Petitioners submitted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.M.P.No.25779 of 2022
representation seeking permission to conduct procession and public meetings
before the police personnel and it is also related law and order issues. It doesn't
contain any civil right to treat the Writ Petitions under civil in nature. Therefore,
the above judgment is not applicable to the case on hand. The Registry of this
Court rightly numbered the Writ Petitions under criminal.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the
order dated 16.02.2022 passed in W.A.SR.No.79295 of 2021 in the case Ellora
restaurant, rep by its Proprietor vs. Commissioner of Police and anr., in
which this Court after considering Ram Kishan Fauji case held that the nature of
right, which is violated, has to be taken into account and the authority, passed
the order, cannot be the sole determining factor. Therefore, just because the
Commissioner of Police is exercising powers, it cannot be said to be a matter of
criminal in nature.
11. In another case, the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh at
Shimla, in the judgment dated 03.08.2011 in C.W.P.No.7919 of 2010 in the case
of Aruna Sood Vs. State of H.P. And ors, held that the judgment in a Writ
Petition cannot be avoided by filing another Writ Petition. The remedy open to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.M.P.No.25779 of 2022
the petitioner is either to file a third party review or to file a third party appeal.
One of the principles behind such a well settled position is to avoid multiplicity
of litigations and to prevent abuse, if not misuse of process of the Court. This
case also not applicable to the case on hand, since the present application has
been filed to grant leave to review the order passed by this Court. If at all any
grievances over the order passed by this Court, the petitioner can very well
challenge the same in the manner known to law. Now the Review Application
has been filed as against the order passed by this Court with the subject as per
roster as Writs Criminal. Therefore, the submission made by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner that the Registry ought not to have numbered the
Writ Petitions as criminal, cannot be accepted, since it is against the principles
of Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act.
12. It is relevant to rely upon the judgment reported in (2017) 5 SCC
533 in the case of Ram Kishan Fauji Vs. State of Haryana and ors, in which
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that a criminal proceeding is ordinarily
one in which if carried to its conclusion it may result in the imposition of
sentences such as death, imprisonment, fine or forfeiture of property. It also
includes proceedings in which in the larger interest of the State, orders to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.M.P.No.25779 of 2022
prevent apprehended breach of the peace, orders to bind down persons who are
a danger to the maintenance of peace and order or orders aimed at preventing
vagrancy. It is squarely applicable to the case on hand that the proceedings
including larger interest of State, orders to prevent apprehended breach of the
peace coming under the criminal proceedings. Therefore, the Registry of this
Court rightly numbered the Writ Petitions under criminal proceeding.
13. Insofar as the prayer to grant leave is concerned, admittedly, the
petitioner is not a party to all the Writ Petitions and he is no way connected with
the Writ Petitioners. The relief sought for in the Writ Petitions is that they were
seeking permission to conduct procession and public meeting on 02.10.2022.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner also sought for permission to
conduct procession on the same day in all parts of Tamil Nadu. However, the
said request was also rejected by the authority concerned. If at all the petitioner
aggrieved by the order passed by this Court, he can very well challenge the said
order in the manner known to law. Therefore, the petitioner has no locus to
review the order passed by this Court. Mere the petitioner also sought for
permission to conduct procession on the same day viz., on 02.10.2022., it
doesn't give any right to the petitioner to review the order passed by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.M.P.No.25779 of 2022
It is nothing but clear abuse of process of Court.
14. That apart, the grounds raised by the petitioner are applicable only
to challenge the order passed by this Court and not for review, since there is no
apparent error on the face of records as such the petitioner failed to make any
ground to review the order passed by this Court. Considering the above facts
and circumstances, this Court finds no merits in the Review Application to
review the order dated 22.09.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.No.24540 of
2022 etc., batch. Hence, the present petition to grant leave to file Review
Application is liable to be dismissed.
15. Accordingly, the Writ Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed and
the Review Application in Rev.Applw.SR.No.108585 of 2022 is hereby rejected.
18.10.2022
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non Speaking order
rts
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.M.P.No.25779 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
rts
Order in
W.M.P.No.25779 of 2022 in
Rev. Aplw.SR.No.108585 of 2022
in W.P.No.24540 of 2022
18.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
