Dr.Ambedkar Mandran-Thiruchuli, Vs. 1.The Superintendent of Police, - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
before the madurai bench of madras high court dated: 13.04.2015 coram the honourable mr.justice s.manikumar and the honourable ms.justice g.chockalingam w.p.(md).no.5630 of 2015 & m.p.(md).no.1 of 2015 dr.ambedkar mandran-thiruchuli, rep.by its president mr.m.murugan, east street, govt.hospital road, thiruchuli, virudhunagar district.petitioners versus 1.the superintendent of police, virudhunagar district, virudhunagar. 2.the deputy superintendent of police, aruppukkottai sub-division, (in-charge) thiruchuli sub-division, thiruchuli, virudhunagar district. 3.the inspector of police, tiruchuli police station, thiruchuli, virudhunagar district. . respondents prayer writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the 2nd respondent in pursuant to the impugned order passed by him in na.ka.no.70/ka.thu.ka/ thiruchuli/2015, dated 12.04.2015, quashing the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently directing the respondents to grant permission and adequate police protection to celebrate dr.ambedkar's 125th birthday anniversary on 14.04.2015, by distributing sweets, conducting annadhanam and welfare assistance to the poor people at 'dr.ambedkar ground', thiruchuli, virudhunagar district. !for petitioner mr.r.singaravelan, for mr.g.thalaimutharasu. ^for respondents : mr.k.chellapandian, addl.advocate general, assisted by mr.m.alagadevan, special government pleader. :order (order of the court was made by s.manikumar ,j.) dr.ambedkar mandram, thiruchuli, represented by its president mr.m.murugan, virudhunagar district, has filed a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to quash order of the deputy superintendent of police, aruppukottai sub-division, thiruchuli sub-division (in-charge).thiruchuli, the 2nd respondent herein, in na.ka.no.70/ka.thu.ka/thiruchuli/2015, dated 12.04.2015, and consequently, sought for a direction the respondents to grant permission and provide adequate police protection to celebrate dr.ambedkar's 125th birthday anniversary on 14.04.2015, by distributing sweets, conducting annadhanam and welfare assistance programmes, to the poor people at 'dr.ambedkar ground' (thidal).thiruchuli, virudhunagar district. 2.according to the petitioner, dr.ambedkar mandam, thiruchuli, has been conducting programmes celebrating of dr.ambedkar's birthday on the 14th of april, every year, at dr.ambedkar thidal (ground).for the past 30 years.some of the members belonging to weaker sections of the society have also put-up construction near the thidal. dr.ambedkar's statue has been installed in a vacant place. according to the petitioner, people belonging to various communities garland the statue of dr.ambedkar on his birthday and death anniversaries. so far, there is no communal disharmony, in the said place between any sections of the society. 3.the petitioner has further contended that dr.ambekdar's mandram, thiruchuli, wanted to celebrate the 125th birth anniversary of dr.ambedkar on 14.04.2015, by distributing sweets, conducting annadhanam and welfare assistance programmes, to the people, at dr.ambedkar thidal, thiruchuli, virudhunagar district. in this regard, it was decided to submit a petition to the sub-inspector of police, thiruchuli police station, seeking permission. on 09.04.2015, p.karuppaiah, sr.ganesh radios, thiruchuli, has submitted an application to the sub-inspector of police, thiruchuli police station, to permit him to have loudspeakers.for the aforesaid programmes, scheduled on 14.04.2015. on 10.04.2015, mr.ilavarasan, secretary, dr.ambedkar mandram, thiruchuli, has submitted a petition to the sub-inspector of police, thiruchuli police station, to grant permission to conduct the said programmes at 10.00 a.m., on 14.04.2015. in the petition, dated 10.04.2015, it is stated that the tahsildar, thiruchuli, has agreed to participate. 4.in addition to the above, mr.r.singaravelan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that till 09.04.2015, there was no law and order problem in the area nor there was any communal disharmony. according to him, during a temple car festival, some children, who attended the temple festive, picked up quarrel between themselves, and that they were taken to the police station. being aggrieved over the same, people belonging to some sections of the society had an issue with the police and for not handling the situation properly, the inspector of police, thiruchuli police station, was transferred on 09.04.2015 and only because of that incident, the deputy superintendent of police, aruppukottai sub- division, thiruchuli sub-division (in-charge).thiruchuli, has passed the impugned order, rejecting the request of the petitioner to celebrate dr.ambedkar's 125th birth anniversary, at dr.ambedkar thidal, stating that there would be a law and order problem. 5.mr.r.singaravelan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that dr.ambedkar was a national leader and also the father of our constitution and that his birthday is being celebrated everywhere. according to him, celebration cannot be curtailed, unless and until there are materials to indicate likelihood of breach of peace, and consequently any law and order problem. according to him, for many years.there was no incident in the said area, warranting restriction for celebration of dr.ambedkar's birthday anniversary. it is his further submission that the impugned order is only due to the ineffective handling of the incident, by the police. 6.learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the impugned order does not reflect the nature of cases filed against the parties. it is also his submission that dr.ambedkar thidal is a public place, where public functions are conducted by political parties, or associations. he submitted that the deputy superintendent of police, aruppukottai sub-division, thiruchuli sub-division (in-charge).thiruchuli, was wrong in stating that the place where the function is scheduled to be held, is the subject matter of a civil suit. 7.placing reliance on the decision of a division bench of this court in (2008) 3 mlj926?. c.j.rajan versus deputy superintendent of police, mayiladuthurai, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that section 30(2) of the police act (5 of 1861) is only regulatory in nature and in exercise of the same, there cannot be any total prohibition to conduct any meeting or procession. attention of this court was also invited to a decision made in home secretary, government of tamil nadu v. era.selvam, reported in (2013) 3 mlj513 wherein, the hon'ble division bench of this court permitted a meeting to be conducted at mayilai mongollai, near kabaleeswar temple, chennai, on 14.04.2013, on the eve of celebration of dr.ambedkar's birth anniversary and to give away awards to certain persons. in this context, the learned counsel also invited the attention of this court to the objections of the police therein, that there would be movement of heavy vehicular traffic and that the place of public meeting, is closer to kabaleeswa temple. for the submissions stated supra, the learned counsel prayed for quashing the impugned order and to grant permission to conduct the function, subject to reasonable restrictions. 8.per contra, mr.k.chellapandian, learned additional advocate general, submitted that the place in which the petitioner has put-up a mandram, belongs to highways department. near the mandram, there is a temple. on 02.04.2015, during the temple car festival, there was a clash between two groups of people, resulting in registration of a case in crime no.82 of 2005 on the file of thiruchuli police station under sections 147, 148, 452, 294(b).324, 307 and 506(ii) ipc, the injured persons are in the hospital and persons secured by the police in connection with the crime were forcibly taken back, from the police station. 9.learned additional advocate general further submitted that the place, in which the petitioner's mandram has sought for permission to celebrate the 125th birth anniversary of dr.ambedkar , is about 150 metres away from the temple. consequent to the clash, which occurred on 02.04.2015, an additional superintendent of police, two deputy superintendents of police and 35 police personnel have been posted, in the said area, apprehending law and order problem between the two groups of people. inviting attention of this court to an unreported judgment of the hon'ble apex court in special leave to appeal (civil) no(s).8519/2006 ?. union of india versus state of gujart and others.dated 18.01.2013, the learned additional advocate general further submitted that when an attempt was made to put-up a statute on public roads, pavements, sideways and other public utility places, the hon'ble supreme court has granted injunction. learned additional advocate general further submitted that the hon'ble supreme court has also made it clear that the order shall apply to all states and union territories, and the concerned chief secretary/administrator were directed to ensure compliance of the above order. 10.reverting to the case on hand, the learned additional advocate general submitted that in the case on hand, the petitioner mandram has recently installed a statue, without the permission from the competent authorities he further submitted that in order to avoid any untoward incident, if the petitioner comes forward with a representation, to conduct the programme in some other place, the same could be considered, on merits. 11.heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 12.o.s.no.39 of 2011 on the file of the learned district munsif, aruppukkottai, dr.ambedkar mandram, thiruchuli, rep.by its president (regn.no.40/2011).has been filed against (i) government of tamil nadu, rep.by the district collector, virudhunagar district; (ii) the tahsildar, thiruchuli; and (iii) the assistant divisional engineer, highways department, thiruchuli, for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein or any other person, claiming through them, from demolishing and removing the construction, with asbestos sheets, made in the suit mentioned property. the suit has been filed in the year 2011. an interlocutory application in i.a.no.169 of 2011 has been filed seeking interim injunction. no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. hence on 04.01.2012, the learned district munsif, aruppukkottai, has allowed the interlocutory application and granted interim injunction. learned additional advocate general has submitted that now written statement has been filed and the suit is ripe for trial. thus, it could be seen that insofar as the suit schedule mentioned property is concerned, where the petitioner mandram has put-up a construction, with asbestos sheets, injunction is in force against the defendants therein. 13.one of the reasons assigned in the impugned order, dated 12.04.2015, for rejecting the request of the petitioner, to conduct 125th birthday celebrations of dr.ambedkar is that, in respect of the place for which permission is sought for, there is a dispute pending in the court. this, according to us, prima facie does not appear to be correct, for the reason that even as per the impugned order, dated 12.04.2015, the programme is scheduled to be conducted at dr.ambedkar thidal, and not in the disputed property, subject matter of the suit in o.s.no.39vof 2011 on the file of the learned district munsif, aruppukkottai. 14.the second reason stated in the impugned order dated 12.04.2015 is that consequent to the occurrence on 02.04.2015 in a temple festival, there was a clash between two groups of people and that there was a law and order problem. though the second respondent has stated that criminal cases have been registered and thus there was a law and order problem, during the cours.of argument, the learned additional advocate general submitted that only one criminal case in crime no.82 of 2005 on the file of thiruchuli police station under sections 147, 148, 452, 294(b).324, 307 and 506(ii) ipc, has been registered and not many cases, as mentioned in the impugned order, dated 12.04.2015. as per the impugned order, dated 12.04.2015, between 04.04.2015 and 18.04.2015, an order under section 30(2) of the police act, is in force. at this juncture, we deem it fit to extract section 30 of the police act, which reads as under: "30.regulation of public assemblies and processions and licensing of the same.--(1)the district superintendent or assistant district superintendent of police may, as occasion requires, direct the conduct of all assemblies and processions on the public roads, or in the public streets or thoroughfares, and prescribe the routes by which, and the time at which, such processions may pass. (2)he may also, on being satisfied that it is intended by any person or class of persons to convene or collect an assembly in any such road, street or thoroughfare, or to form a procession which would in the judgment of the magistrate of the district, or of the sub-division of a district, if uncontrolled, be likely to cause a breach of the peace, required by general or special notice, that the persons convening or collecting such assembly or directing or promoting such procession shall apply for a licence. (3)on such application being made, he may issue a licence, specifying the names of the licensees and defining the conditions on which alone such assembly or such possession is to be permitted to take place, and otherwise giving effect to this section. provided that no fee shall be charged on the application for, or grant of any such licence. " 15.on the contention of mr.r.singaravelan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that till 08.04.2015, there was no law and order problem in the area and only when the inspector of police, thiruchuli police station, did not deal with the situation, properly, there was a problem, which resulted in the transfer of inspector of police, thiruchuli and consequently, police in large numbers have bee posted, we enquired mr.t.madasamy, additional superintendent of police, present in the court. he submitted that in the temple festival, there was some problem between the children and they were brought to the police station and thereafter only trouble started. from the statement of the additional superintendent of police, it is clear that between different sections of the people, there was no communal disharmony or any incident inciting any problem in the temple festival, but, it was due to some incident between children. from the statement of additional superintendent of police, it appears that if the elders belonging to different sections of the communities had no issues in the conduct of the festival. had the incident between the children been handled properly, there would not have been any problem. the additional superintendent of police, present in the court, also admitted that the incident between the children was not dealt with properly and therefore the inspector of police, thiruchuli police station, was transferred on 09.04.2015. 16.as rightly pointed out by mr.r.singaravelan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in c.j.rajan versus deputy superintendent of police, mayiladuthurai, reported in (2008) 3 926, the hon'ble division bench of this court has held that section 30(2) of the police act is only regulatory in nature and not a blanket power to stifle any democratic dissent of the citizens by the police. it is useful to extract paragraphs 10 to 13 of the judgment, which read as under: "10.in this context, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of the supreme court in himat lal k. shah v. police commissioner, ahmedabad (1973 (1) scc227 rendered by a constitution bench of the apex court, wherein, the court struck down rule 7 of the rules framed under the bombay police act on the ground that rule, which empowered the commissioner of police to refuse permission to hold meetings without giving any guidance under the rule and thereby conferring an arbitrary discretion, was an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of association and freedom of assembly guaranteed under article 19 of the constitution. the court also held that the word "regulating" in section 33(1)(o) of the bombay police act would include the power to prohibit and impose the condition that permission should be taken a few days before the holding of the meeting on a public street. mathew, j., dissented from the view of the majority and held that the power to regulate did not include the right to prohibit and the permission sought for holding a meeting ought not be refused. the majority opinion was that regulation is necessary to enable citizens to enjoy the various rights in crowded public streets, and that the state can make regulation in aid of the right of the assembly of each citizen and can impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order. 11.the supreme court also in s. rangarajan v.p.jagjivan ram [1989 (2) scc574 held that freedom of speech under article 19(1)(a) of the constitution of india means the right to express one's own opinion by word of mouth, printing, picture or is any one manner of ideas made through any and the communication of ideas made through any medium. such right, however, was held to be subject to reasonable restrictions in the larger interest of the community and the country as set out in article 19(2) of the constitution. those restrictions are intended to strike a proper balance between the liberty guaranteed, and the social interests specified under article 19(2).the court emphasised that the interest of freedom of expression and social interest cannot be regarded as of equal weight and the court's commitment to freedom of expression demands that it cannot be suppressed unless the situations created by allowing the freedom are pressing and the community interest is endangered. the anticipated danger should not be remote, conjectural or farfetched, but should have proximate and direct nexus with the expression. the expression of thought should be intrinsically dangerous to the public interests. it should be inseparably locked up with the action contemplated like the equivalent of a "spark in a powder keg."12.therefore, it is too late for the respondents to refuse permission to hold a meeting on a matter of public importance. with respect to the respondents' reliance upon section 30(2) of the police act, 1861, it can only be said that it enables the respondents to direct the control and conduct of all assemblies and processions on public road or in the public streets or thoroughfares and to prescribe the rules by which and the times by which the processions may pass and section 30(2) and (3) on which reliance was placed, is extracted below: sec 30(2):" he may also, on being satisfied that it is intended by any persons or class of persons to convene or collect an assembly in any such road, street or thoroughfare, or to form a procession which would, in the judgment of the magistrate of the district, or of the sub-division of a district, if uncontrolled, be likely to cause a breach of the peace, require by general or special notice, that the persons convening or collecting such assembly or directing or promoting such procession shall apply for a licence. (3)on such application being made, he may issue a licence, specifying the names of the licensees and defining the conditions on which alone such assembly or such procession is to be permitted to take place, and otherwise giving effect to this section."13.therefore, the said provision is only a regulatory power and not a blanket power to stifle any democratic dissent of the citizens by the police."17.in the case reported in (2013) 3 mlj513?. home secretary, government of t.n.v. era.selvam, permission to take out a procession and thereafter, to celebrate dr.ambedkar's birthday at mangollai, mylapore, on 14.04.2013 and also to give away awards to certain persons, was rejected. a political party wanted to celebrate the birthday anniversary of dr.ambedkar. though the state objected to the above said procession and meeting on the grounds inter alia that 14.04.2013 being a tamil new year day, large number of people would visit kabaleeswarar temple and that the same is located near the place, where the meeting was to be organized and that there would be large number of vehicles, in the procession, causing traffic congestion, taking note of the powers conferred under section 41 of the chennai city police act, 1888 and the judgment in (i)himat lal k. shah v. commissioenr of police, ahamedabad ?. air1973sc87 (ii) s.rangarajan v. p.jagitvan ram ?. (1998) 2 scc574 and (iii) ramlila maidan incident, in re ?. (2012) 5 scc1and the rights of the citizens to conduct a procession or public meeting, at paragraphs 10 to 14, a division bench of this court held as follows: "10.the appellants cannot deny the right of the people though discretion is vested with them under section 41 of the chennai city police act, 1888. in chennai city sufficient police force is available to meet any eventuality. in the decision reported in air1973sc87(himat lal k.shah v. commissioner of police, ahmedabad).it is held that although right to hold a public meeting at a public place may not be a fundamental right by itself, yet it is so closely connected with fundamental right that a power to regulate it should not be left in a nebulous state. article 19(1)(a) of the constitution of india guarantees to all citizen the right to freedom of speech and expression subject to reasonable restrictions on the grounds set out under article 19(2).the reasonable limitations can be put in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of india, the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement of an offence. in the decision reported in (1989) 2 scc574(s.rangarajan v. p.jagjivan ram) in paragraph 53 the supreme court held thus, "53.freedom of expression which is legitimate and constitutionally protected, cannot be held to ransom by an intolerant group of people. the fundamental freedom under article 19(1)(a) can be reasonably restricted only for the purposes mentioned in article 19(2) and the restriction must be justified on the anvil of necessity and not the quicksand of convenience or expediency. open criticism of government policies and operations is not a ground for restricting expression. we must practice tolerance to the views of others.intolerance is as much dangerous to democracy as to the person himself."11.in the decision reported in (2012) 5 scc1(ramlila maidan incident, in re) the supreme court held that the freedom of speech, right to assemble and demonstrate by holding dharnas and peaceful agitations are the basic features of democratic system. in para 245 the supreme court held thus, "245.............the people of a democratic country like ours have a right to raise their voice against the decisions and actions of the government or even to express their resentment over the actions of the government on any subject of social or national importance. the government has to respect and, in fact, encourage exercise of such rights. it is the abundant duty of the state to aid the exercise of the right to freedom of speech as understood in its comprehensive sense and not to throttle or frustrate exercise of such rights by exercising its executive or legislative powers and passing orders or taking action in that direction in the name of reasonable restrictions. the preventive steps should be founded on actual and prominent threat endangering public order and tranquillity, as it may disturb the social order. this delegated power vested in the state has to be exercised with great caution and free from arbitrariness. it must serve the ends of the constitutional rights rather than to subvert them."12.thus, the right of the citizens to conduct procession and public meeting cannot be curtailed, except on definite reasons and not on mere surmises. in the division bench judgment of this court reported in cdj2008mhc613(cited supra) freedom to conduct meeting on a sensitive issue was considered and this court directed to grant permission to hold the meeting and the police were directed to provide adequate protection for the smooth conduct of the meeting. 13.the decision cited by the learned advocate general reported in (2004) 4 scc684(supra) was rendered when the prohibitory order imposed under section 144 of the crl.p.c.was challenged to prohibit religious meeting at communally sensitive area where several communal clashes resulted in several deaths and damages to public and private properties. the said facts are entirely different from the fact of this case. 14.considering the above principles in mind as well as the claim made by the respondents in these writ appeals that they are organising procession and award giving function on the birth anniversary day of dr.b.r.ambedkar on 14.4.2013 and to avoid apprehension expressed by the learned advocate general that the entire persons participating in the procession will straight away go to the meeting place at mangollai, mylapore, chennai, we are of the view that the said apprehension can be answered by modifying the order of the learned single judge, directing the writ petitioners/respondents herein to hold procession between 10.00 a.m.and 1.30 p.m.on 14.4.2013 from rajarathinam stadium to langs garden road and to conduct public meeting at mangollai, mylapore, chennai-4 from 6.00 to 10.00 p.m.the change of timing will avoid the persons participating in the procession going to the place of meeting straight away as there will be a brake of 4.30 hours.the police are directed to regulate traffic and permit the writ petitioners to conduct procession and meeting as aforesaid. the conditions imposed by the learned single judge in his order dated 12.4.2013 is to be scrupulously followed by the writ petitioners/respondents herein and organisers and leader of the party, who assured to control the entire cadre. it is needless to reiterate that while conducting procession during the above said time and conduct of meeting, the organisers should see that no untoward incident is allowed to happen and if any violation of the undertaking given by the organisers or by any other person, the appellants are entitled to deal with them to preserve maintenance of peace and tranquility and it is open to them to initiate appropriate action against the violators.in accordance with law."18.though mr.k.chellapandian, learned additional advocate general submitted that in union of india versus state of gujarat and others.an unreported decision of the hon'ble apex court, in special leave to appeal (civil) no(s).8519/2006, decided on 18.01.2013, the hon'ble apex court ordered that no statue shall be permitted to be installed in any public roads, pavements, sideways and other public utility places and further contended that the abovesaid order is applicable to all the states and union territories, this court, with due respect, is of the view that the abovesaid decision cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case, for the reason that in union of india versus state of gujarat and others.there is no dispute that the statue was admittedly installed on a highway. in the case on hand, we are concerned only with the refusal to grant permission to conduct a function in a thidal, which is stated to be used by everybody to conduct meetings or programmes. that apart, in the case on hand, statue has already been installed and that the petitioner has also filed a suit for a permanent injunction against the district collector and two others.as defendants and that an interim injunction granted from 2011, has not been vacated. 19.celebration is in dr.ambedkar thidal, thiruchuli. the contention of mr.r.singaravelan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that dr.ambedkar thidal is being used by political parties and others to conduct meetings is not seriously disputed by the respondents. though the respondents have contended that there is likelihood of law and order problem, no previous instances of any untoward incident, at this particular place, between different sections of people, have been reported or placed before this court, except the alleged incident said to have taken place on 02.04.2015, in a temple car festival. temple is stated to be at a distance of 150 metres (about 500 ft.) from ambedkar thidal. even the said alleged incident is not for enforcing any customary rights, between the sections of people, residing in the said area. 20.from the statement of the additional superintendent of police, present in the court, it appears to be a fight or quarrel between children, who had attended the temple car festival and the improper handling of the same would have probably given rise to a situation of law and order problem. though adequate police is stated to have been posted near the temple to avoid any untoward incident, still, they have all the powers under the police act, to maintain law and order. 21.organizers have intended to distribute sweets, savories, pongal and annadhanam and to grant some welfare assistance, nothing more is scheduled on 14.04.2015. from the letter, dated 10.04.2015, of ilavarasan, secretary of petitioner mandram, thiruchuli, it could be seen that the petitioner mandram has intended to invite the tahsildar, thiruchuli, to inaugurate the celebrations. as rightly contended by mr.r.singaravelan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, if really there was any law and order problem, no government official would have consented to attend the function, more particularly, an executive magistrate, who is also duty bound to maintain peace and order. answering to the above, the learned additional advocate general, submitted that no proof is produced before the court evidencing that the tahsidlar, thiruchuli, has agreed to attend the function. whoever be the person attending the programme, fact remains that the programme is for celebrating one of the national leaders of our country. needless to state that even the government have declared dr.ambedkar's birthday as public holiday. many institutions and governments are celebrating his birthday. considering the freedom of a citizen under article 19(1)(a)&(b) of the constitution of india vis-a-vis the police powers under section 30(2) of the police act, this court is of the view that it is for the police to maintain law and order, in any area, where birthday celebrations are conducted for national leaders.there cannot be a total prohibition. it is the selfless national leaders.who got freedom for us, and freedom of speech and expression is a constitutional right. celebrating their birth or death anniversaries, should not be curtailed , but, at the same time, law and order to be maintained. restriction of the constitutional rights under article 19(1)(a)&(b).should satisfy the test of reasonableness, with concrete materials. 22.for the reasons stated supra, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order in na.ka.no.70/d.s.p./thiruchuli, 2015, dated 12.04.2015, passed by the deputy superintendent of police, aruppukottai sub- division, thiruchuli sub-division (in-charge).thiruchuli and accordingly set aside. consequently, we issue a direction to the respondents to grant permission to the petitioner mandram to celebrate dr.ambekar's 125th birthday anniversary on 14.04.2015, by distributing sweets, conducting anna dhanam and granting welfare assistance to the poor people at dr.ambedkar ground, thiruchuli, virudhunagar district, between 10.00 a.m.and 02.00 p.m., subject to the following conditions:- i)names and particulars of the organizers shall be furnished to the inspector of police, thiruchuli police station, virudhunagar district. ii)the respondents shall monitor that none of the organizers address the gathering in any manner offending the rights and sentiments of others.iii)the function shall be conducted between 10.00 a.m.and 02.00 p.m.on 14.04.2015 and the function shall confine strictly as per the program, i.e.distribution of pongal, sweets, savories, followed by anna dhanam and welfare assistance. iv)the organizers shall not raise any slogans offending any individual belonging to political parties or leaders of any other section of the society. v)the organizers and the participants of the said function shall not carry any flex boards or placards, which may cause communal disharmony and use of loudspeakers should be within the permissible limits. vi) respondents are directed to ensure that the organizers of the function shall give an undertaking that they would maintain communal harmony and that public peace and tranquility are maintained. vii) the organizers of the meeting shall also abide by such other reasonable conditions that may be imposed by the respondent police. viii) the organizers of the function shall follow the above conditions scrupulously. if there is any violation of the conditions imposed by this court, in addition to any of the reasonable conditions imposed by the respondents, they are entitled to take action, as per law. ix) it is made clear that prevention of any untoward incident should be the prime consideration of the law enforcement agency. x)police is permitted to impose reasonable restrictions, while regulating traffic. it is made clear that under the guise of traffic regulation, stringent conditions should not be imposed, except to maintain law and order. 23.the superintendent of police, virudhunagar distrct, should ensure the implementation of the order of this court in letter and spirit. the writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. no costs. consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. index : yes (s.m.k,j.) (g.c.,j.) internet : yes 13.04.2015 gb to 1.the superintendent of police, virudhunagar district, virudhunagar. 2.the deputy superintendent of police, aruppukkottai sub-division, (in-charge) thiruchuli sub-division, thiruchuli, virudhunagar district. 3.the inspector of police, tiruchuli police station, thiruchuli, virudhunagar district. s.manikumar,j. and g.chockalingam,j gb order in w.p.(md).no.5630 of 2015 & m.p.(md).no.1 of 2015 dated:13.04.2015

Judgment:

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.04.2015 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM W.P.(MD).No.5630 of 2015 & M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2015 Dr.Ambedkar Mandran-Thiruchuli, rep.by its President Mr.M.Murugan, East Street, Govt.Hospital Road, Thiruchuli, Virudhunagar District.Petitioners versus 1.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Aruppukkottai Sub-Division, (in-charge) Thiruchuli Sub-Division, Thiruchuli, Virudhunagar District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Tiruchuli Police Station, Thiruchuli, Virudhunagar District.

.

Respondents Prayer Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the 2nd respondent in pursuant to the impugned order passed by him in Na.Ka.No.70/Ka.Thu.Ka/ Thiruchuli/2015, dated 12.04.2015, quashing the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently directing the respondents to grant permission and adequate police protection to celebrate Dr.Ambedkar's 125th Birthday Anniversary on 14.04.2015, by distributing sweets, conducting Annadhanam and Welfare Assistance to the poor people at 'Dr.Ambedkar Ground', Thiruchuli, Virudhunagar District.

!For Petitioner Mr.R.Singaravelan, for Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu.

^For respondents : Mr.K.Chellapandian, Addl.Advocate General, assisted by Mr.M.Alagadevan, Special Government Pleader.

:

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR ,J.) Dr.Ambedkar Mandram, Thiruchuli, represented by its President Mr.M.Murugan, Virudhunagar District, has filed a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to quash order of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Aruppukottai Sub-Division, Thiruchuli Sub-Division (in-charge).Thiruchuli, the 2nd respondent herein, in Na.Ka.No.70/Ka.Thu.Ka/Thiruchuli/2015, dated 12.04.2015, and consequently, sought for a direction the respondents to grant permission and provide adequate police protection to celebrate Dr.Ambedkar's 125th Birthday Anniversary on 14.04.2015, by distributing sweets, conducting Annadhanam and Welfare Assistance programmes, to the poor people at 'Dr.Ambedkar Ground' (Thidal).Thiruchuli, Virudhunagar District.

2.According to the petitioner, Dr.Ambedkar Mandam, Thiruchuli, has been conducting programmes celebrating of Dr.Ambedkar's Birthday on the 14th of April, every year, at Dr.Ambedkar Thidal (Ground).for the past 30 yeaRs.Some of the members belonging to weaker sections of the Society have also put-up construction near the Thidal.

Dr.Ambedkar's statue has been installed in a vacant place.

According to the petitioner, people belonging to various communities garland the statue of Dr.Ambedkar on his Birthday and death anniversaries.

So far, there is no communal disharmony, in the said place between any sections of the Society.

3.The petitioner has further contended that Dr.Ambekdar's Mandram, Thiruchuli, wanted to celebrate the 125th Birth Anniversary of Dr.Ambedkar on 14.04.2015, by distributing sweets, conducting Annadhanam and welfare assistance programmes, to the people, at Dr.Ambedkar Thidal, Thiruchuli, Virudhunagar District.

In this regard, it was decided to submit a petition to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Thiruchuli Police Station, seeking permission.

On 09.04.2015, P.Karuppaiah, Sr.Ganesh Radios, Thiruchuli, has submitted an application to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Thiruchuli Police Station, to permit him to have loudspeakeRs.for the aforesaid programmes, scheduled on 14.04.2015.

On 10.04.2015, Mr.Ilavarasan, Secretary, Dr.Ambedkar Mandram, Thiruchuli, has submitted a petition to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Thiruchuli Police Station, to grant permission to conduct the said programmes at 10.00 a.m., on 14.04.2015.

In the petition, dated 10.04.2015, it is stated that the Tahsildar, Thiruchuli, has agreed to participate.

4.In addition to the above, Mr.R.Singaravelan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that till 09.04.2015, there was no law and order problem in the area nor there was any communal disharmony.

According to him, during a temple car festival, some children, who attended the temple festive, picked up quarrel between themselves, and that they were taken to the police station.

Being aggrieved over the same, people belonging to some sections of the Society had an issue with the police and for not handling the situation properly, the Inspector of Police, Thiruchuli Police Station, was transferred on 09.04.2015 and only because of that incident, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Aruppukottai Sub- Division, Thiruchuli Sub-Division (in-charge).Thiruchuli, has passed the impugned order, rejecting the request of the petitioner to celebrate Dr.Ambedkar's 125th Birth Anniversary, at Dr.Ambedkar Thidal, stating that there would be a law and order problem.

5.Mr.R.Singaravelan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that Dr.Ambedkar was a National Leader and also the Father of our Constitution and that his birthday is being celebrated everywhere.

According to him, celebration cannot be curtailed, unless and until there are materials to indicate likelihood of breach of peace, and consequently any law and order problem.

According to him, for many yeaRs.there was no incident in the said area, warranting restriction for celebration of Dr.Ambedkar's Birthday anniversary.

It is his further submission that the impugned order is only due to the ineffective handling of the incident, by the Police.

6.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the impugned order does not reflect the nature of cases filed against the parties.

It is also his submission that Dr.Ambedkar Thidal is a public place, where public functions are conducted by political parties, or Associations.

He submitted that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Aruppukottai Sub-Division, Thiruchuli Sub-Division (in-charge).Thiruchuli, was wrong in stating that the place where the function is scheduled to be held, is the subject matter of a civil suit.

7.Placing reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in (2008) 3 MLJ926?.

C.J.Rajan versus Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mayiladuthurai, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that Section 30(2) of the Police Act (5 of 1861) is only regulatory in nature and in exercise of the same, there cannot be any total prohibition to conduct any meeting or procession.

Attention of this Court was also invited to a decision made in Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu v.

Era.Selvam, reported in (2013) 3 MLJ513 wherein, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court permitted a meeting to be conducted at Mayilai Mongollai, near Kabaleeswar Temple, Chennai, on 14.04.2013, on the eve of celebration of Dr.Ambedkar's Birth Anniversary and to give away awards to certain persons.

In this context, the learned counsel also invited the attention of this Court to the objections of the Police therein, that there would be movement of heavy vehicular traffic and that the place of public meeting, is closer to Kabaleeswa Temple.

For the submissions stated supra, the learned counsel prayed for quashing the impugned order and to grant permission to conduct the function, subject to reasonable restrictions.

8.Per contra, Mr.K.Chellapandian, learned Additional Advocate General, submitted that the place in which the petitioner has put-up a Mandram, belongs to Highways Department.

Near the Mandram, there is a temple.

On 02.04.2015, during the temple car festival, there was a clash between two groups of people, resulting in registration of a case in Crime No.82 of 2005 on the file of Thiruchuli Police Station under Sections 147, 148, 452, 294(b).324, 307 and 506(ii) IPC, the injured persons are in the hospital and persons secured by the Police in connection with the crime were forcibly taken back, from the Police Station.

9.Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the place, in which the petitioner's mandram has sought for permission to celebrate the 125th Birth Anniversary of Dr.Ambedkar , is about 150 metres away from the temple.

Consequent to the clash, which occurred on 02.04.2015, an Additional Superintendent of Police, two Deputy Superintendents of Police and 35 Police Personnel have been posted, in the said area, apprehending law and order problem between the two groups of people.

Inviting attention of this Court to an unreported judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).8519/2006 ?.

Union of India versus State of Gujart and OtheRs.dated 18.01.2013, the learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that when an attempt was made to put-up a statute on public roads, pavements, sideways and other public utility places, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted injunction.

Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also made it clear that the order shall apply to all States and Union Territories, and the concerned Chief Secretary/Administrator were directed to ensure compliance of the above order.

10.Reverting to the case on hand, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that in the case on hand, the petitioner Mandram has recently installed a statue, without the permission from the competent authorities He further submitted that in order to avoid any untoward incident, if the petitioner comes forward with a representation, to conduct the programme in some other place, the same could be considered, on merits.

11.Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

12.O.S.No.39 of 2011 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Aruppukkottai, Dr.Ambedkar Mandram, Thiruchuli, rep.by its President (Regn.No.40/2011).has been filed against (i) Government of Tamil Nadu, rep.by the District Collector, Virudhunagar District; (ii) The Tahsildar, Thiruchuli; and (iii) The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Highways Department, Thiruchuli, for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein or any other person, claiming through them, from demolishing and removing the construction, with asbestos sheets, made in the suit mentioned property.

The suit has been filed in the year 2011.

An interlocutory application in I.A.No.169 of 2011 has been filed seeking interim injunction.

No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents.

Hence on 04.01.2012, the learned District Munsif, Aruppukkottai, has allowed the interlocutory application and granted interim injunction.

Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that now written statement has been filed and the suit is ripe for trial.

Thus, it could be seen that insofar as the suit schedule mentioned property is concerned, where the petitioner Mandram has put-up a construction, with asbestos sheets, injunction is in force against the defendants therein.

13.One of the reasons assigned in the impugned order, dated 12.04.2015, for rejecting the request of the petitioner, to conduct 125th Birthday celebrations of Dr.Ambedkar is that, in respect of the place for which permission is sought for, there is a dispute pending in the court.

This, according to us, prima facie does not appear to be correct, for the reason that even as per the impugned order, dated 12.04.2015, the programme is scheduled to be conducted at Dr.Ambedkar Thidal, and not in the disputed property, subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.39vof 2011 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Aruppukkottai.

14.The second reason stated in the impugned order dated 12.04.2015 is that consequent to the occurrence on 02.04.2015 in a temple festival, there was a clash between two groups of people and that there was a law and order problem.

Though the second respondent has stated that criminal cases have been registered and thus there was a law and order problem, during the couRs.of argument, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that only one criminal case in Crime No.82 of 2005 on the file of Thiruchuli Police Station under Sections 147, 148, 452, 294(b).324, 307 and 506(ii) IPC, has been registered and not many cases, as mentioned in the impugned order, dated 12.04.2015.

As per the impugned order, dated 12.04.2015, between 04.04.2015 and 18.04.2015, an order under Section 30(2) of the Police Act, is in force.

At this juncture, we deem it fit to extract Section 30 of the Police Act, which reads as under: "30.Regulation of public assemblies and processions and licensing of the same.--(1)The District Superintendent or Assistant District Superintendent of Police may, as occasion requires, direct the conduct of all assemblies and processions on the public roads, or in the public streets or thoroughfares, and prescribe the routes by which, and the time at which, such processions may pass.

(2)He may also, on being satisfied that it is intended by any person or class of persons to convene or collect an assembly in any such road, street or thoroughfare, or to form a procession which would in the judgment of the Magistrate of the district, or of the sub-division of a district, if uncontrolled, be likely to cause a breach of the peace, required by general or special notice, that the persons convening or collecting such assembly or directing or promoting such procession shall apply for a licence.

(3)On such application being made, he may issue a licence, specifying the names of the licensees and defining the conditions on which alone such assembly or such possession is to be permitted to take place, and otherwise giving effect to this section.

Provided that no fee shall be charged on the application for, or grant of any such licence.

" 15.On the contention of Mr.R.Singaravelan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that till 08.04.2015, there was no law and order problem in the area and only when the Inspector of Police, Thiruchuli Police Station, did not deal with the situation, properly, there was a problem, which resulted in the transfer of Inspector of Police, Thiruchuli and consequently, Police in large numbers have bee posted, we enquired Mr.T.Madasamy, Additional Superintendent of Police, present in the Court.

He submitted that in the temple festival, there was some problem between the children and they were brought to the police station and thereafter only trouble started.

From the statement of the Additional Superintendent of Police, it is clear that between different sections of the people, there was no communal disharmony or any incident inciting any problem in the temple festival, but, it was due to some incident between children.

From the statement of Additional Superintendent of Police, it appears that if the elders belonging to different sections of the communities had no issues in the conduct of the festival.

Had the incident between the children been handled properly, there would not have been any problem.

The Additional Superintendent of Police, present in the court, also admitted that the incident between the children was not dealt with properly and therefore the Inspector of Police, Thiruchuli Police Station, was transferred on 09.04.2015.

16.As rightly pointed out by Mr.R.Singaravelan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in C.J.Rajan versus Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mayiladuthurai, reported in (2008) 3 926, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has held that Section 30(2) of the Police Act is only regulatory in nature and not a blanket power to stifle any democratic dissent of the citizens by the police.

It is useful to extract paragraphs 10 to 13 of the judgment, which read as under: "10.In this context, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Himat Lal K.

Shah v.

Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad (1973 (1) SCC227 rendered by a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, wherein, the Court struck down Rule 7 of the Rules framed under the Bombay Police Act on the ground that Rule, which empowered the Commissioner of Police to refuse permission to hold meetings without giving any guidance under the Rule and thereby conferring an arbitrary discretion, was an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of association and freedom of assembly guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution.

The Court also held that the word "regulating" in Section 33(1)(o) of the Bombay Police Act would include the power to prohibit and impose the condition that permission should be taken a few days before the holding of the meeting on a public street.

Mathew, J., dissented from the view of the majority and held that the power to regulate did not include the right to prohibit and the permission sought for holding a meeting ought not be refused.

The majority opinion was that regulation is necessary to enable citizens to enjoy the various rights in crowded Public Streets, and that the State can make regulation in aid of the right of the assembly of each citizen and can impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order.

11.The Supreme Court also in S.

Rangarajan v.P.Jagjivan Ram [1989 (2) SCC574 held that freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India means the right to express one's own opinion by word of mouth, printing, picture or is any one manner of ideas made through any and the communication of ideas made through any medium.

Such right, however, was held to be subject to reasonable restrictions in the larger interest of the community and the country as set out in Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

Those restrictions are intended to strike a proper balance between the liberty guaranteed, and the social interests specified under Article 19(2).The Court emphasised that the interest of freedom of expression and social interest cannot be regarded as of equal weight and the court's commitment to freedom of expression demands that it cannot be suppressed unless the situations created by allowing the freedom are pressing and the community interest is endangered.

The anticipated danger should not be remote, conjectural or farfetched, but should have proximate and direct nexus with the expression.

The expression of thought should be intrinsically dangerous to the public interests.

It should be inseparably locked up with the action contemplated like the equivalent of a "spark in a powder keg."

12.Therefore, it is too late for the respondents to refuse permission to hold a meeting on a matter of public importance.

With respect to the respondents' reliance upon Section 30(2) of the Police Act, 1861, it can only be said that it enables the respondents to direct the control and conduct of all assemblies and processions on public road or in the public streets or thoroughfares and to prescribe the Rules by which and the times by which the processions may pass and Section 30(2) and (3) on which reliance was placed, is extracted below: Sec 30(2):" He may also, on being satisfied that it is intended by any persons or class of persons to convene or collect an assembly in any such road, street or thoroughfare, or to form a procession which would, in the judgment of the Magistrate of the district, or of the sub-division of a district, if uncontrolled, be likely to cause a breach of the peace, require by general or special notice, that the persons convening or collecting such assembly or directing or promoting such procession shall apply for a licence.

(3)On such application being made, he may issue a licence, specifying the names of the licensees and defining the conditions on which alone such assembly or such procession is to be permitted to take place, and otherwise giving effect to this section."

13.Therefore, the said provision is only a regulatory power and not a blanket power to stifle any democratic dissent of the citizens by the Police."

17.In the case reported in (2013) 3 MLJ513?.

Home Secretary, Government of T.N.v.

Era.Selvam, permission to take out a procession and thereafter, to celebrate Dr.Ambedkar's Birthday at Mangollai, Mylapore, on 14.04.2013 and also to give away awards to certain persons, was rejected.

A political party wanted to celebrate the birthday Anniversary of Dr.Ambedkar.

Though the State objected to the above said procession and meeting on the grounds inter alia that 14.04.2013 being a Tamil New year Day, large number of people would visit Kabaleeswarar Temple and that the same is located near the place, where the meeting was to be organized and that there would be large number of vehicles, in the procession, causing traffic congestion, taking note of the powers conferred under Section 41 of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888 and the judgment in (i)Himat Lal K.

Shah v.

Commissioenr of Police, Ahamedabad ?.

AIR1973SC87 (ii) S.Rangarajan v.

P.Jagitvan Ram ?.

(1998) 2 SCC574 and (iii) Ramlila Maidan Incident, In Re ?.

(2012) 5 SCC1and the rights of the citizens to conduct a procession or public meeting, at paragraphs 10 to 14, a Division Bench of this Court held as follows: "10.The appellants cannot deny the right of the people though discretion is vested with them under Section 41 of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888.

In Chennai City sufficient police force is available to meet any eventuality.

In the decision reported in AIR1973SC87(Himat Lal K.Shah v.

Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad).it is held that although right to hold a public meeting at a public place may not be a fundamental right by itself, yet it is so closely connected with fundamental right that a power to regulate it should not be left in a nebulous state.

Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India guarantees to all citizen the right to freedom of speech and expression subject to reasonable restrictions on the grounds set out under Article 19(2).The reasonable limitations can be put in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement of an offence.

In the decision reported in (1989) 2 SCC574(S.Rangarajan v.

P.Jagjivan Ram) in paragraph 53 the Supreme Court held thus, "53.Freedom of expression which is legitimate and constitutionally protected, cannot be held to ransom by an intolerant group of people.

The fundamental freedom under Article 19(1)(a) can be reasonably restricted only for the purposes mentioned in Article 19(2) and the restriction must be justified on the anvil of necessity and not the quicksand of convenience or expediency.

Open criticism of government policies and operations is not a ground for restricting expression.

We must practice tolerance to the views of otheRs.Intolerance is as much dangerous to democracy as to the person himself."

11.In the decision reported in (2012) 5 SCC1(Ramlila Maidan Incident, In Re) the Supreme Court held that the Freedom of speech, right to assemble and demonstrate by holding dharnas and peaceful agitations are the basic features of democratic system.

In para 245 the Supreme Court held thus, "245.............The people of a democratic country like ours have a right to raise their voice against the decisions and actions of the Government or even to express their resentment over the actions of the Government on any subject of social or national importance.

The Government has to respect and, in fact, encourage exercise of such rights.

It is the abundant duty of the State to aid the exercise of the right to freedom of speech as understood in its comprehensive sense and not to throttle or frustrate exercise of such rights by exercising its executive or legislative powers and passing orders or taking action in that direction in the name of reasonable restrictions.

The preventive steps should be founded on actual and prominent threat endangering public order and tranquillity, as it may disturb the social order.

This delegated power vested in the State has to be exercised with great caution and free from arbitrariness.

It must serve the ends of the constitutional rights rather than to subvert them."

12.Thus, the right of the citizens to conduct procession and public meeting cannot be curtailed, except on definite reasons and not on mere surmises.

In the Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in CDJ2008MHC613(cited supra) freedom to conduct meeting on a sensitive issue was considered and this Court directed to grant permission to hold the meeting and the police were directed to provide adequate protection for the smooth conduct of the meeting.

13.The decision cited by the learned Advocate General reported in (2004) 4 SCC684(supra) was rendered when the prohibitory order imposed under section 144 of the Crl.P.C.was challenged to prohibit religious meeting at communally sensitive area where several communal clashes resulted in several deaths and damages to public and private properties.

The said facts are entirely different from the fact of this case.

14.Considering the above principles in mind as well as the claim made by the respondents in these writ appeals that they are organising procession and award giving function on the birth anniversary day of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar on 14.4.2013 and to avoid apprehension expressed by the learned Advocate General that the entire persons participating in the procession will straight away go to the meeting place at Mangollai, Mylapore, Chennai, we are of the view that the said apprehension can be answered by modifying the order of the learned single Judge, directing the writ petitioners/respondents herein to hold procession between 10.00 a.m.and 1.30 p.m.on 14.4.2013 from Rajarathinam Stadium to Langs Garden Road and to conduct public meeting at Mangollai, Mylapore, Chennai-4 from 6.00 to 10.00 p.m.The change of timing will avoid the persons participating in the procession going to the place of meeting straight away as there will be a brake of 4.30 houRs.The police are directed to regulate traffic and permit the writ petitioners to conduct procession and meeting as aforesaid.

The conditions imposed by the learned single Judge in his order dated 12.4.2013 is to be scrupulously followed by the writ petitioners/respondents herein and organisers and leader of the party, who assured to control the entire cadre.

It is needless to reiterate that while conducting procession during the above said time and conduct of meeting, the organisers should see that no untoward incident is allowed to happen and if any violation of the undertaking given by the organisers or by any other person, the appellants are entitled to deal with them to preserve maintenance of peace and tranquility and it is open to them to initiate appropriate action against the violatORS.in accordance with law."

18.Though Mr.K.Chellapandian, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that in Union of India versus State of Gujarat and otheRs.an unreported decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).8519/2006, decided on 18.01.2013, the Hon'ble Apex Court ordered that no statue shall be permitted to be installed in any public roads, pavements, sideways and other public utility places and further contended that the abovesaid order is applicable to all the States and Union Territories, this Court, with due respect, is of the view that the abovesaid decision cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case, for the reason that in Union of India versus State of Gujarat and otheRs.there is no dispute that the statue was admittedly installed on a Highway.

In the case on hand, we are concerned only with the refusal to grant permission to conduct a function in a Thidal, which is stated to be used by everybody to conduct meetings or programmes.

That apart, in the case on hand, statue has already been installed and that the petitioner has also filed a suit for a permanent injunction against the District Collector and two otheRs.as defendants and that an interim injunction granted from 2011, has not been vacated.

19.Celebration is in Dr.Ambedkar Thidal, Thiruchuli.

The contention of Mr.R.Singaravelan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that Dr.Ambedkar Thidal is being used by political parties and others to conduct meetings is not seriously disputed by the respondents.

Though the respondents have contended that there is likelihood of law and order problem, no previous instances of any untoward incident, at this particular place, between different sections of people, have been reported or placed before this Court, except the alleged incident said to have taken place on 02.04.2015, in a temple car festival.

Temple is stated to be at a distance of 150 metres (About 500 ft.) from Ambedkar Thidal.

Even the said alleged incident is not for enforcing any customary rights, between the sections of people, residing in the said area.

20.From the statement of the Additional Superintendent of Police, present in the court, it appears to be a fight or quarrel between children, who had attended the temple car festival and the improper handling of the same would have probably given rise to a situation of law and order problem.

Though adequate Police is stated to have been posted near the temple to avoid any untoward incident, still, they have all the powers under the police Act, to maintain law and order.

21.Organizers have intended to distribute sweets, savories, pongal and Annadhanam and to grant some welfare assistance, nothing more is scheduled on 14.04.2015.

From the letter, dated 10.04.2015, of Ilavarasan, Secretary of Petitioner Mandram, Thiruchuli, it could be seen that the petitioner Mandram has intended to invite the Tahsildar, Thiruchuli, to inaugurate the celebrations.

As rightly contended by Mr.R.Singaravelan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, if really there was any law and order problem, no Government official would have consented to attend the function, more particularly, an Executive Magistrate, who is also duty bound to maintain peace and order.

Answering to the above, the learned Additional Advocate General, submitted that no proof is produced before the Court evidencing that the Tahsidlar, Thiruchuli, has agreed to attend the function.

Whoever be the person attending the Programme, fact remains that the programme is for celebrating one of the National Leaders of our country.

Needless to state that even the government have declared Dr.Ambedkar's Birthday as public holiday.

Many institutions and governments are celebrating his birthday.

Considering the freedom of a citizen under Article 19(1)(a)&(b) of the Constitution of India vis-a-vis the police powers under Section 30(2) of the Police Act, this Court is of the view that it is for the Police to maintain law and order, in any area, where birthday celebrations are conducted for national leadeRs.There cannot be a total prohibition.

It is the selfless national leadeRs.who got freedom for us, and freedom of speech and expression is a constitutional right.

Celebrating their birth or death anniversaries, should not be curtailed , but, at the same time, law and order to be maintained.

Restriction of the constitutional rights under Article 19(1)(a)&(b).should satisfy the test of reasonableness, with concrete materials.

22.For the reasons stated supra, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.70/D.S.P./Thiruchuli, 2015, dated 12.04.2015, passed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Aruppukottai Sub- Division, Thiruchuli Sub-Division (in-charge).Thiruchuli and accordingly set aside.

Consequently, we issue a direction to the respondents to grant permission to the petitioner Mandram to celebrate Dr.Ambekar's 125th Birthday Anniversary on 14.04.2015, by distributing sweets, conducting Anna Dhanam and granting Welfare Assistance to the poor people at Dr.Ambedkar Ground, Thiruchuli, Virudhunagar District, between 10.00 a.m.and 02.00 p.m., subject to the following conditions:- i)Names and particulars of the organizers shall be furnished to the Inspector of Police, Thiruchuli Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

ii)The respondents shall monitor that none of the organizers address the gathering in any manner offending the rights and sentiments of otheRs.iii)The function shall be conducted between 10.00 a.m.and 02.00 p.m.on 14.04.2015 and the function shall confine strictly as per the program, i.e.Distribution of pongal, sweets, savories, followed by Anna Dhanam and welfare assistance.

iv)The organizers shall not raise any slogans offending any individual belonging to political parties or leaders of any other section of the Society.

v)The organizers and the participants of the said function shall not carry any flex boards or placards, which may cause communal disharmony and use of loudspeakers should be within the permissible limits.

vi) Respondents are directed to ensure that the Organizers of the function shall give an undertaking that they would maintain communal harmony and that public peace and tranquility are maintained.

vii) The organizers of the meeting shall also abide by such other reasonable conditions that may be imposed by the respondent police.

viii) The organizers of the function shall follow the above conditions scrupulously.

If there is any violation of the conditions imposed by this Court, in addition to any of the reasonable conditions imposed by the respondents, they are entitled to take action, as per law.

ix) It is made clear that prevention of any untoward incident should be the prime consideration of the law enforcement agency.

x)Police is permitted to impose reasonable restrictions, while regulating traffic.

It is made clear that under the guise of traffic regulation, stringent conditions should not be imposed, except to maintain law and order.

23.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar Distrct, should ensure the implementation of the order of this Court in letter and spirit.

The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.

No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Index : Yes (S.M.K,J.) (G.C.,J.) Internet : Yes 13.04.2015 gb To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Aruppukkottai Sub-Division, (in-charge) Thiruchuli Sub-Division, Thiruchuli, Virudhunagar District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Tiruchuli Police Station, Thiruchuli, Virudhunagar District.

S.MANIKUMAR,J.

and G.CHOCKALINGAM,J gb Order in W.P.(MD).No.5630 of 2015 & M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2015 Dated:13.04.2015