P.Selvarasu v. The State Rep. By The Deputy Superintendent Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 30.06.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN P.Selvarasu ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tittagudi Sub-division, Cuddalore District.

2. The Inspector of Police, Tittagudi Police Station, Tittagudi, Cuddalore District.

... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in proceedings Na.Ka.No.275/2025 dated 28.05.2025 and quash the same and permit to conduct the meeting scheduled to be given by way of fresh representation to the respondents.

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Jawahar For Respondents : Dr.C.E.Pratap Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 1/6

O R D E R

Challenge the rejection order passed in Na.Ka.No.275 of 2025 dated 28.05.2025 by the first respondent/Police, the present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the Trichy Regional Secretary of ''Puratchi Thamizhagam Katchi'' and they used to conduct several rallies and meetings only to espouse the cause of the people at large. At this juncture, the said party scheduled to conduct a District level indoor meeting in the name of ''Vaazhuvurimai Maavatta Arasiyal Maanadu'' at Annadurai Chandra Mahal at No.4/27, Vandikara Theru, Tittagudi on 31.05.2025 at 10 a.m., in a peaceful manner without causing any disturbance to the general public. Hence, the petitioner made a representation dated 21.05.2025 to the second respondent-Police for granting permission to conduct the meeting. However, the first respondent-Police, vide impugned order dated 28.05.2025, rejected the representation of the petitioner on the ground that one complaint was given to the Chidambaram City Police Station with regard to controversial speech of Founder-President of the said party against the 2/6

President of VCK (Viduthalai Siruthaigal Katchi), during the function at Trichy and if the meeting is conducted as stated above, it may create chaos and lead to law and order problem in the said locality.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first respondent-Police, without issuing show cause notice and without affording sufficient opportunity of hearing, passed the impugned order, which is unsustainable and unwarranted and also against the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents-Police, by referring to the counter affidavit of the second respondent, submitted that the proposed indoor conference of the petitioner's party is likely to be opposed by the members of the Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi, particularly objecting the presence of Founder-President of ''Puratchi Thamizhagam Katchi'' in the Cuddalore District. Therefore, the respondents-Police apprehends that such opposition may give rise to a law and order problem and that they denied permission to conduct the proposed conference at Cuddalore District. 3/6

5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. It is seen from the records, particularly, affidavit and counter affidavit, that there are no specific reasons given for rejecting the representation of the petitioner seeking to conduct the proposed meeting at Cuddalore District, except bald allegations, and therefore, the impugned rejection order dated 28.05.2025 passed by the first respondent/Police, is hereby quashed. However, the petitioner is directed to submit a fresh representation to the respondent/Police, and on receipt of the same, the respondent/Police is directed to consider said representation and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law.

7. As per Article 19 of the Constitution of India, every citizen had got a right to express their views. Further, the said right/freedom is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of the State, public order and other relevant factors. Therefore, both the petitioner and respondents are directed to bear in mind the object and 4/6

scope of Article 19 of the Constitution of India and strictly adhere to the said Article.

8. With the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition is disposed. There shall be no order as to costs. 30.06.2025 Index : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No ms To

1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tittagudi sub-division, Cuddalore District.

2. The Inspector of Police, Tittagudi Police Station, Tittagudi, Cuddalore District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

5/6

P.VELMURUGAN, J ms 30.06.2025 6/6