Madras High Court
P.Ramalingam vs The Commissioner Of Police on 5 March, 2025
W.P.(MD)No.5773 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 05.03.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
W.P.(MD)No.5773 of 2025
and
W.M.P(MD) Nos.4218 and4219 of 2025
P.Ramalingam ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Commissioner of Police
O/o.Commissioner of Police
Madurai City, Madurai
2. The Assistant Commissioner of Police
Thidir Nagar Circle
Madurai City, Madurai
3. The Inspector of Police
Subramaniyapuram Police Station
Madurai ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
pertaining to the impugned order in C. No.30/AC/Camp/MC/2025 dated
26.02.2025 on the file of the respondent No.2 and quash the same as
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 07:55:58 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.5773 of 2025
illegal and consequently direct the respondent No.2 to grant permission
for the petitioner to conduct harmony meeting on 14.03.2025 or any
other date within the time frame stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathy Roy, Senior Counsel
for M/s.Roy and Roy Associates
For Respondents : Mr. A.Baskaran
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
The prayer sought for in the present writ petition is to call for the
records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the second
respondent in C. No.30/AC/Camp/MC/2025 dated 26.02.2025 and quash
the same as illegal and consequently direct the second respondent to
grant permission to the petitioner to conduct harmony meeting on
14.03.2025 or any other date within the time frame stipulated by this
Court.
2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that the petitioner belongs to Makkal Kailai Illakiya Kazhagam,
political organization and they conducted several meetings in the very
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 07:55:58 pm )
same place for public cause and recently some politicians spread rumours
and created religious harmony among two sects of people and the
petitioner's organization has only to cause to bring peace and unity
among the people and hence they proposed to organize a general meeting
at Palaganatham, Madurai region on 03.03.2025. Therefore he sent a
representation on 22.02.2025 to the respondents and thereafter they
passed order on 26.02.2025 by refusing to grant of permission to
conduct harmony meeting and the same was served to the petitioner on
27.02.2025. The impugned order is totally a non- application of mind
and already this Court issued directions to the respondents to grant
permission to the members of Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh to take
out procession in the routes prescribed by the respondents and to hold
public meeting in the places earmarked by the respondents with some
reasonable restrictions as they deems fit and proper. Therefore the order
passed by the second respondent is liable to be quashed and permission
has to be granted to the petitioner for conducting harmony meeting on
14.03.2025.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 07:55:58 pm )
3. The learned Senior Counsel also relied on the following
judgements passed by this Court:
a)K.Phanindra Reddy and others .vs. G.Subramanian reported in
2023 SCC Online SC 402
b)WP(MD)Nos.3363,3364 and 3374 of 2025 in the case of
M.Murugan .vs. The District Collector and others.
4. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the
respondents would submit that the petitioner has sent a representation to
conduct meeting on 03.03.2025 from 10.00 am., to 02.00 pm., at
Palanganatham, Nataraj theatre and they passed order that as per the
requisition they decided to conduct meeting in the Tiruparankundran
area where two religious people claiming right over their temple and
thereby already tension prevailing over locality and if the meeting is
conducted it will create law and order issue and clash between two sects
of people therefore the second respondent rightly rejected the
permission.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 07:55:58 pm )
5. The learned Additional Advocate General relied on the
following judgments of this Court.
a) S.Yuvaraj .vs. The Commissioner of Police, E.V.K.Sampath
Salai, Vepery. Chennai and others in WP No.4732 of 2025
b) Syed Raja .vs. The Commissioner of Police, Office of the
Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai in WP(MD) No.4634
of 2025.
6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
7. The petitioner gave a request to the respondents for conducting
meeting on 03.03.2025 at about 10.00 a.m., and the same was rejected
by citing reasons that already there is a tension prevailing over the
locality between two sects of people and if permission is granted at this
stage it will cause hindrance to public and there are chances for law and
order issue. According to the respondents now temple festival at
Thiruparankundram for Panguni Uthiram is also started and the place
selected by the petitioner is a prime area of the town and it will cause
hindrance to the public and further already there is dispute between two
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 07:55:58 pm )
groups and the same is now under control. While so, if permission is
granted to conduct such meeting in and around Tiruparankundram it will
not only create clash between two groups but also law and order issue,
therefore the second respondent has correctly rejected the request. The
respondents are the competent persons to control the law and order issue
and thereby they are the fit person to decide either to grant to permission
or decline permission depending upon the situation in the locality
08. This Court also perused the records. In the affidavit of the
petitioner in para no.4 the petitioner has stated as follows:
“ In our organization we conducted several meeting
in the very same place for public cause, on recently some
hated politicians spread rumors and created a religious
disharmony among two sects of people and our
organization has only cause to bring peace and unity
among the people and hence we proposed to organize this
General Meeting at Palaganatham Maduari region on
03.02.2025.
09. The averment shows the intention of the petitioner that it will
definitely create clash between two sects of people , therefore in order to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 07:55:58 pm )
ensure peace to the public and to avoid any untoward incidents
declining the permission by the police is in order. Therefore this Court
considering the tension prevailing over the locality declined to interfere
with the order passed by the second respondent, therefore the petition
deserves to be dismissed.
10. So far as the judgments relied on the side of the petitioner are
concerned they will not be applicable to the present facts of the case
because in this case now there is a tension prevailing over the locality
due to some dispute between two sects of people and it is the duty to the
police to ensure peace and security to the public. It is true that freedom of
speech and conducting meeting is fundamental right but it is also subject
to reasonable restrictions.
11. So far the judgements relied on by the learned Additional
Advocate General are concerned already this Court declined to grant
permission based on the situation prevailing in the locality and thereby it
is not proper to grant permission at this stage.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 07:55:58 pm )
12. Further the petitioner has not sent a representation for the
conduct of meeting on 14.03.2025 they only challenged the order passed
by the second respondent for the particular date on 03.03.2025 and the
same is lapsed, therefore this Court need not set aside the order passed by
the second respondent.
13. In the result, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed. However
the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate authorities for
conduct of meeting outside the Madurai City. If any such request is made
by the petitioner, the concerned police officials may consider the same in
accordance with law.
05.03.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
aav
Note: Issue order copy on 05.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 07:55:58 pm )
To
1. The Commissioner of Police
O/o.Commissioner of Police
Madurai City, Madurai
2. The Assistant Commissioner of Police
Thidir Nagar Circle
Madurai City, Madurai
3. The Inspector of Police
Subramaniyapuram Police Station
Madurai
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 07:55:58 pm )
P.DHANABAL, J.
aav
05.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 07:55:58 pm )
