R.Durairaj vs The District Collector
2022 Latest Caselaw 15606 Mad

                                                                         WP(MD)No.22208 of 2022

                              BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                 DATED: 21.09.2022

                                                      CORAM:

                    THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

                                              W.P.(MD)No.22208 of 2022

                 R.Durairaj                                                ... Petitioner
                                                        /vs./

                 1.The District Collector,
                   Trichy District, Trichy.

                 2. The Superintendent of Police,
                    Trichy District, Trichy.

                 3.The Inspector of Police,
                   Thotiyyam- Incharge Musiri Police Station,
                   Trichy District.                           ... Respondents

                 (R1 is suo motu impleaded vide order of this Court, dated 21.09.2022 and
                 the original respondents are re-arranged accordingly)

                 PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
                 for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records
                 pertaining to the impugned rejection order issued by the 2nd respondent
                 vide his proceedings dated 16.09.2022 vide Na.Ka.No. 01-11-Ka - a -
                 Musiri, Ka Ni /2022 and quash the same as illegal and consequenlty
                 directing the respondents to grant permission for the petitioner to conduct
                 the Hunger Strike on 22.09.2022 from 09.00 am to 4.00 pm at Musiri Tha
                 Pettai nearby Roundana, Musiri, Trichy District.




                 1/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                              WP(MD)No.22208 of 2022



                                  For Petitioner    :Mr.V.Malaiyendran
                                  For Respondents   :Mr.B.Nambi Selvan
                                                     Additional Public Prosecutor
                                                           ****


                                                        ORDER

The Petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a Writ of

Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the

impugned rejection order issued by the second Respondent vide his

proceedings dated 16.09.2022 vide Na.Ka.No. 01-11-Ka - a - Musiri, Ka

Ni /2022 and quash the same as illegal and consequently, to direct the

Respondents to grant permission for the Petitioner to conduct the Hunger

Strike on 22.09.2022 from 09.00 am to 4.00 pm at Musiri Tha Pettai nearby

Roundana, Musiri, Trichy District.

2.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor takes notice for the

Respondents. By consent, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final

disposal.

3.Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondents.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.22208 of 2022

4.The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that

he had given representation which was rejected, therefore he has filed the

present Petition.

5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the

Respondents, on instructions, would submit that the Petitioner's

representation was rejected on 16.09.2022, therefore, the prayer sought

for has become infructuous. He would further submit that earlier

representation was rejected and subsequently the Petitioner had not given

any representation. In such circumstances, the Present Writ Petition is not

maintainable.

6.The learned Counsel for the Petitioner had filed a Petition seeking

to organise hunger strike on 22.09.2022.

7.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the

Petitioner has not given any representation to organise protest on

22.09.2022. Only he has given representation, this Petition is

maintainable.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.22208 of 2022

8.Considering the fact that the earlier Petition was rejected by the

Respondents, the Petitioner seeking Mandamus against the Respondents

with the changed date, as per the prayer in the Writ Petition is found

maintainable. The objection by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is

rejected.

9.It is to be noted that Honourable Supreme Court in the case of

(1998) 1 SCC 201 (Communist Party of India (M) vs Bharat Kumar

and others), held as follows:

"Constitution of India -Arts.19 & 21 and 51 - 'Bandh' - Calling for, holding of and enforcing 'bandh' by political parties, organised bodies or associations - Held, violative of fundamental rights of the citizens in addition to causing national loss and hence declared unconstitutional and illegal - Calling for a 'bandh' is different from calling for 'hartal' or strike having regard to effect of 'bandh' on fundamental rights of the people as a whole which cannot be made subservient to the claim of fundamental rights of an individual or a section of the people- Govt.should take steps to recoup and of recouping the loss from the sponsors and organisers of such 'bandhs'- Reasonings given by High Court in Bharat Kumar case, particularly, those in paras 12, 13 and 17 for the ultimate conclusion and directions in para 18 of its judgment accepted as correct-Bandhs.

17.No political party or organisation can claim that it is entitled to paralyse the industry and commerce in the entire State or nation and is entitled to prevent the citizens not in sympathy with its viewpoint, from exercising their fundamental rights or from performing their duties for their own benefit or for the benefit of the State or the nation. Such a claim would be unreasonable and could not be accepted as a legitimate exercise of a fundamental right by a political party or those comprising it. The claim for relief by the petitioners in these original petitions will have to be considered in this background.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.22208 of 2022

18.The contention that no relief can be granted against the political parties in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be accepted in its entirety. As indicated already, this Court has ample jurisdiction to grant a declaratory relief to the petitioners in the presence of the political party respondents. This is all the more so since the case of the petitioners is based on their fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The State has not taken any steps to control or regulate the bundhs. The stand adopted by the Advocate General is that the Court cannot compel the State or the Legislature to issue orders or make law in that regard. As we find that organised bodies or associations or registered political parties, by their act of calling and holding bundhs, trample upon the rights of the citizens of the country protected by the Constitution, we are of the view that this Court has sufficient jurisdiction to declare that the calling of a “bundh” and the holding of it is unconstitutional especially since it is undoubted that the holding of “bundhs” are not in the interests of the nation, but tend to retard the progress of the nation by leading to national loss of production. We cannot also ignore the destruction of public and private property when a bundh is enforced by the political parties or other organisations. We are inclined to the view that the political parties and the organisations which call for such bundhs and enforce them are really liable to compensate the Government, the public and the private citizen for the loss suffered by them for such destruction. The State cannot shirk its responsibility of taking steps to recoup and of recouping the loss from the sponsors and organisers of such bundhs. We think that these aspects justify our intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution."

10.The Respondents are directed to consider the representation if

given by the Petitioner afresh and in these circumstances, there shall not

be any hindrance to the free flow of traffic. As a democratic country,

protests are permitted, if it is without any violence. The Petitioner is within

his liberty to organize it subject to maintain peace in the locality without

giving any chances for the breach of peace and law and order issue. If

there are violations of conditions imposed by the Respondents, the S.H.O.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.22208 of 2022

of the Police Station concerned can take appropriate action as per law.

11.The District Collector, Trichy District, Trichy is suo motu

impleaded as third respondent, considering the subject matter of the

adjudication.

12.With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No

costs.

                 Index : Yes / No                                 21.09.2022
                 Internet: Yes / No
                 aav/cmr

Encl.: (1998) 1 SCC 201 (Communist Party of India (M) vs Bharat Kumar and others)

Note: Issue Order Copy on 21.09.2022.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.22208 of 2022

To:

1.The District Collector, Trichy District, Trichy. (through e-mail also)

2. The Superintendent of Police (Rural), Trichy District, Trichy. (through e-mail also)

3.The Inspector of Police, Thuvarankurichi Police Station, Thuvarankurichi, Trichy District.

4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Copy to:

1.The Commissioner of Police, Trichy District, Trichy. (through e-mail also)

2.The Inspector of Police, Musiri Police Station, Trichy District.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.22208 of 2022

SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.

aav/cmr

W.P.(MD)No.22208 of 2022

21.09.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis