Judgment:
ORDER
1. Here is a case where two religious associations namely, Gerohe-E-Miran Shah (the writ petitioner) and Garohe-E-Hazarath alias Taqui (Respondent No. 2 who got impleaded later to the filing of the writ petition) of Machilipatnam of Krishna District are at loggerheads on the issue of taking out 10th day Moharram procession. The dispute relates to the route and in fact the petitioner was not permitted to take out procession by earlier orders of the Sub-divisional Police Officer, Bandar, dt. 1-9-1987. For the next year, the petitioner made an application dated 1-8-1988 to permit the said procession giving out the details as regards time, date as also the route. In the route mentioned, the prominent place is Koneru centre of Bandar Town. When there was nothing heard on the said application D/-1-8-1988, a reminder was filed by the petitioner on 16-8-1988. When even that did not yield any results, the instant writ petition was filed seeking the issuance of writ of Mandamus to respondents 2 and 3 to take out the religious procession mentioned supra.
2. In the writ petition, it is pleaded that the procession ought to be taken out is a religious procession and the taking out of the same is a part of fundamental rights and that discrimination is being played by respondents 2 and 3 in permitting the 4th respondent to take out such procession and preventing the petitioner from doing so. While admitting the writ petition interim orders have been passed by the learned single Judge on 22-8-1988 directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to take out their procession on the occasion referred to above subject to regulation of timings, place and route by them pending the disposal of the writ petition. By proceedings dated 1-8-1990 of the 3rd respondent herein the exercise of the powers under S.30 of the Police Act, licence for procession was issued to the petitioner to take out the procession placing some conditions and fixing the time date and route of the same. It is needless to mention that it is subject to the result of the writ petition as the same was issued after passing of the interim orders by this Court. It is also mentioned in the said proceedings that no request for the change of route mentioned therein shall be entertained in future.
3. During the course of arguments, Mr. A. Ananta Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the pleas in the writ petition and submitted that the respondents 2 and 3 having permitted the 4th respondent-association to take out the religious procession mentioned supra there is no reason or justification not to permit the petitioner also to take out such a procession on the route the petitioner-proposes and particularly, touching Koneru Centre.
4. No counter has been filed by the respondents 1 to 3 controverting the averments made in the writ petition. In fact, the Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that whatever directions are issued by this court, they will be followed by the respondents 2 and 3.
5. Mr. P.V.R. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent vehemently contends that their association itself has got a right to take out procession on the route sanctioned to them vide proceedings dated 13-7-1991 of the 3rd respondent. Another proceedings D/-17-7-1991 issued by the Town Planning Officer, Machilipatnam Municipality permitting the flag and banners on the routes, (1) Abbasia road to Akbar Chowk (2) Akbar Chowk to Konery centre (3) Koneru centre to Tekke, and (4) Koneru centre to fish market are also produced. Mr. P.V.R. Sarma contends that there was some agreement entered into between the parties with regard to the timings and routes and the petitioner cannot go back from the said agreement. But the said agreement is not accepted by the petitioner's counsel and I cannot pronounce upon the said agreement which is not even made a part of the record. In any event of the matter, the said disputed question of fact cannot be adjudicated by me. The proceedings permitting the procession by both the petitioner and the 4th respondent of the years 1990 and 1991 referred to supra do not refer to any such agreement.
6. Alternatively, Mr. P.V.R. Sarma, contends that this court is not having jurisdiction to dwell upon this aspect and that permitting the petitioner to take out procession on the route sought for will lead to law and order problem.
7. Taking out religious processions peaceably are traceable to both Arts. 19(1)(b) as also 25 of the Constitution of India. It is true that reasonable restrictions can be placed as envisaged under Art. 19(3) of the Indian Constitution to maintain public order. Section 30 of the Police Act referred to by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings mentioned supra may be a regulation in that regard. But the restriction under the said regulation should be a reasonable restriction and should not be unreasonable so as to exceed the necessity of placing such a restriction.
8. Now the question for consideration is as to whether on the touch-stone of the above rights, is it proper for the police authorities, be it 2nd or 3rd respondents, to place a restriction totally preventing the petitioner from touching Koneru centre which they are very particular. For that reason, the 4th respondent is also very particular to touch the said centre.
9. It is admitted that Koneru centre is the prominent centre (chowrastha) in Bandar Town. It is not that there is ban on taking out procession through that centre. In fact, the 4th respodnent was permitted to take out their procession through that centre. When taking out the procession through that centre is not forbidden, there canot be any justification to prevent or prohibit the petitioner from totally touching the said centre while taking the religious procession on 10th day Moharrum.
10. When the fundamental rights are involved and when there is an allegation of discrimination between the two similarly situated persons or associations, no embargo can be placed on the powers of this Court in exercise of Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The law and order problem is a problem which has to be tackled by the respondents 1 to 3 and it is their duty and obligation. In fact, in a police State like ours, the State owes the said duty towards the citizens and the same has to be carried out in full spirit by the respondents 2 and 3.
11. In view of what is stated supra, I hold that both the petitioner and 4th respondent are entitled to take their respective processions touching Koneru centre of Bandar town, but not at the same time. The respondents 2 and 3 are entitled to fix separate timings for the petitioner and the fourth respondent to reach their respective processions touching Koneru centre providing different timings so as to avoid any clash between the people belonging to the said two rival associations. This has to be answered (ensured) by the respondents 2 and 3 immediately as also in future at appropriate times. It is also made clear that the routes leading to Koneru centre both by the petitioner and 4th respondent shall not be the same and shall be distinct and different. Likewise, the routes after touching the Koneru centre also shall be different and distinct.
12. On the above conclusions reached, the following order is passed:
(1) Both the petitioner and the 4th respondent shall be entitled to touch the Koneru Centre of Bandar town while taking out their 10th day of Moharrum processions, be it of this year or in future;
(2) The timings of touching Koneru centre by the petitioner and the 4th respondent different and the respondents 2 and 3 are entitled to fix the said timings;
(3) The routes of processions of both the petitioner and the 4th respondent leading to Koneru centre shall be different and distinct; and
(4) The routes of processions of both the petitioner and 4th respondent after passing through Koneru centre shall also be different and distinct.
(5) The writ petition disposed of accordingly. No costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 250/-.
13. Order accordingly.