Manikandan v. The Deputy Superintendent

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.12.2017

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR W.P.(MD) No.23120 of 2017 Manikandan ... Petitioner -Vs1.The Deputy Superintendent of police, Sattur Sub-Division, Virudhunagar District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Sattur Town Circle, Virudhunagar. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the first respondent in proceedings No.Na.Ka.665/SDO/Sattur/2017 dated 12.12.2017 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to grant permission for conducting demonstration with Audio facilities on 17.12.2017 near Irukkankudi Road Junction at 10.00 am and Madurai Road Junction at 11.00 am.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Thoothai Muniasamy For Respondents : Mr.D.Muruganantham Additional Government Pleader ***

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of certified mandamus, calling for the records and quashing the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 12.12.2017 and to direct the first respondent to grant permission for conducting demonstration with audio facilities on 17.12.2017 near Irukkankudi Road Junction at 10.00 am and Madurai Road junction at 11.00 a.m 2.The petitioner states that the petitioner is a Union Secretary of Bajranthal for the past 12 years and that his party head office is at New Delhi. The organisation, according to the petitioner, was formed with a temporary and localised objective of awakening youth of U.P. It is stated that the role of organisation is to awake the Hindus. The petitioner gave a representation to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

first respondent to grant permission for conducting demonstration with audio facilities on 17.12.2017 near Irukkankudi Road Junction at 10.00 am and Madurai Road junction at 11.00 a.m 3.In the representation of the petitioner, the petitioner stated that a leader of another political party while addressing a public meeting has remarked that the Hindu Temples ought to be demolished. Therefore, the petitioner has given a representation before the first respondent seeking permission to conduct demonstration in two places at 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m on 17.12.2017 condemning the remarks made by the leader of another political party.

4.After carefully considering the nature of protest meeting, the first respondent refused to grant permission by an order dated 12.12.2017, wherein several reasons have been stated by the first respondent for rejecting permission. In the impugned order, it is specifically stated that the purpose of meeting is to demonstrate agitation against a political leader of a party and that if permission is granted, there is a likelihood of law and order problem. The petitioner and his men proposed to condemn the leader of another political party who has supporters throughout state. Therefore, this Court find no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the first respondent refusing to grant permission for conducting demonstration. Accordingly the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CSII) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To:

1.The Deputy Superintendent of police, Sattur Sub-Division, Virudhunagar District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Sattur Town Circle, Virudhunagar.

+One cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR.No.93354 vsg RL/4C/2P/KK/SAR4/19/1/2018 W.P.(MD)No.23120 of 2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 15.12.2017