Madras High Court
S.Thiruvikka vs The Superintendent Of Police on 18 July, 2023
W.P.(MD) No.17257 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 18.07.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN
W.P.(MD) No.17257 of 2023
S.Thiruvikka ... Petitioner
/vs./
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Karur,
Karur District.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Karur Sub Division (Town), Nagariyam,
Karur 639 002.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Vengamedu Police Station,
Karur District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the
impugned order in Na.Ka.No.247/Kaa.Thu.Ka/Ka.U/Karur/2023 dated
24.06.2023 passed by the 2nd respondent as illegal and quash the same and
consequently direct the respondents to grant permission to conduct condemnation
public meeting scheduled on 20.07.2023 at Anna Statue, Vengamedu, Karur by
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.17257 of 2023
considering the petitioner's representation dated 13.07.2023 within a time frame
fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy Senior Counsel for
Mr.J.Senthil Kumaraiah
For Respondents : Mr.SS.Madhavan
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
ORDER
This petition is filed for setting aside the impugned order dated 24.06.2023
passed by the respondent No.2 police vide proceedings Na.Ka.No.
247/Kaa.Thu.Ka/Ka.U/Karur/2023 and to direct the respondent No.2 police to
grant permission for conducting demonstration/public meeting on 20.07.2023 at
Anna Statue, Vengamedu, Karur, based on the petitioner’s representation dated
13.07.2023.
2.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner
is an active member of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kalagam which has
decided to hold public meeting scheduled on 21.06.2023 all over Tamil Nadu. A
representation was given on 16.06.2023 to the respondents 1 to 3 police to grant
permission for conducting of said meeting on 21.06.2023 at Anna Statue
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.17257 of 2023
Vengamedu, Karur.
3.The respondent No.2 police, however, has refused to grant the permission
to conduct the meeting on 21.06.2023 by way of impugned order dated
24.06.2023 by citing that in the year 2019, when the permission was granted for
conducting the condemnation public meeting at the same place, law and order
problem arose between the ruling and the opposition parties and the place, where
the meeting is proposed to be conducted, there are schools, colleges and there is
no parking facilities of two wheelers as well as four wheelers.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on 07.05.2023, the
respondents 1 to 3 police have permitted the other political party to conduct the
meeting at the very same place, thereby the respondent police are discriminating
in granting permission, which is in violation of Article 19(1)(a) and (b) of the
Constitution of India. It is further submitted that Section 30/2 of the Police Act is
only regulatory and not prohibitory in conducting of public meeting. Therefore,
he sought for issuance of suitable directions.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.17257 of 2023
5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) on the other hand submits
that the place, where the meeting is proposed to be hold, is a market place and the
schools, colleges are available there and in case, if the meeting is held, it causes
inconvenience to the public at large. It is also submitted that in case if large
number of people are attending the meeting, it becomes very difficult to maintain
law and order in case if any untoward incident happens. Therefore, the learned
Government Advocate (Crl.side) has submitted that the police have rightly
rejected the request of the petitioner to grant permission to conduct the
condemnation public meeting on 21.06.2023.
6. In the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Phanindra Reddy
and others Vs. G.Subramanian reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 402, it has been
held as under:-
“9.As rightly contended by all the learned senior counsel on
the side of the respondent, the main objection raised by the State
before the High Court was that after the imposition of a ban order on
another organization, law and order problems cropped up in certain
places and that the same led to several cases being registered. The
details of those cases are actually furnished in the memorandum of
grounds of special leave petition(s). We do not wish to extract in this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.17257 of 2023
order, the Chart provided by the State in Ground No.BB of Special
Leave Petition (C) No.4163 of 2023, on account of its sensitivities.
But the Chart provided by the State Government shows that
the members of the respondent organization were the victims in many
of those cases and that they were not the perpetrators. Therefore, it is
not possible for us to find fault with the order passed by the learned
Judge either in the main writ petitions or in the review applications.
Hence all the special leave petitions are liable to be dismissed.”
7. In Manitha Neethi Pasarai, rep. By its District President, A Kalith
Mohammed, Madurai Vs. The Inspector General of Police and Commissioner
of Police, Madurai City reported in (2009) 1 MLJ 695, this Court has held as
follows:-
“19.In the present case, the arguments advanced by the
Additional Advocate General that similar requests made by three
other bodies was also denied and therefore, complete egalitarian
principle adopted by the Commissioner, cannot be accepted. First of
all, other bodies are not before this Court and consequently, the
circumstances under which their requests were rejected was also not
placed before this Court. In any event Courts have never recognized
the flood gate theory. If such requests are made consistent with law,
then they will also have their rights guaranteed by Courts. In the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.17257 of 2023
matter of deciding the fundamental rights of Citizens, such arguments
cannot be accepted. The other argument that the Police will have very
thin force, hence they may not be able to attend to the meeting
organised by the petitioner also cannot be accepted. It is not a case
where the petitioner association is seeking for police protection, and
in such cases the proportional strength of the police can be
determined. The further submission that there is likelihood of
speeches made in the said meeting, inciting communal hatred or
leading to seditious activities. These are the matters which can be
decided only after the meeting takes place, over which there are
sufficient measures are provided under the laws of the Country.
Therefore, duty bound by the Division Bench of this Court in
C.J.Rajan's case (cited supra). The Writ Petition deserves to be
allowed.
20.In the result, the order of the respondent Commissioner
stands set aside to the extent indicated above and the petitioner is
hereby permitted to hold a meeting on 15.08.2008 between 3.00 P.M.
to 6.00 P.M at Viragu Pettai Thiddal near Mattuthavani Bus Stand as
requested by them. If the respondent Police wants to provide any
security, it is left to them to provide such a security as may be
necessary for the smooth conduct of the meeting.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.17257 of 2023
8. In the case on hand, admittedly, the place, where the meeting is proposed
to be conducted, is declared as one one of the places, where the meetings can be
held by the public or other social groups and it is also the fact that one of the
ruling party was allowed to conduct the meeting recently in the same place.
Considering the circumstances and the authorities referred above the reasons in
rejecting the request of the petitioner to grant permission to conduct the
condemnation public meeting are totally unconvincing. Accordingly, the
impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 police vide proceedings
Na.Ka.No.247/Kaa.Thu.Ka/Ka.U/Karur/2023 dated 24.06.2023 is hereby set
aside and the respondent No.2 police is directed to grant the permission to the
petitioner to conduct the condemnation public meeting as sought for by him on
the following conditions:-
a) The petitioner is permitted to conduct the condemnation public meeting
on 20.07.2023 at Anna Statue, Vengamedu, Karur at about 09.00 am.,
b) The petitioner shall ensure that the number of persons attending the
meeting shall not exceed 200 persons.
c) The respondent police shall ensure not to obstruct the smooth flow of
traffic in the place, where the meeting is proposed to be conducted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.17257 of 2023
d) The respondent police are permitted to impose other conditions upon the
petitioner, if necessary, to maintain the law order.
e) If any of the condition is violated by the petitioner, the permission
granted by this Court is stand vacated and the respondent police are at liberty to
take appropriate action against the petitioner as well as the organizers of the said
function.
9.With the above direction, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.
Speaking : Yes / No 18.07.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
mm
Issue order copy on18.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.17257 of 2023
To
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Karur,
Karur District.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Karur Sub Division (Town), Nagariyam,
Karur 639 002.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Vengamedu Police Station,
Karur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.17257 of 2023
DR.D.NAGARJUN, J.
mm/PKN
W.P.(MD) No.17257 of 2023
18.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
