1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:21-10-2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN WP(MD)No.11149 of 2011 And MP(MD)No.1 of 2011 Guruvijayan :Petitioner -Vs- 1.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai District. 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Thallakulam, Madurai City. 3.The Inspector of Police, Thallakulam, Madurai City. ` :Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.224/Ac- TKM/L&O/2011 dated 22.09.2011 and quash the same and directing the 1s respondent to grant permission to hold peaceful Dharna as per the representation dated 20.09.2011. For Petitioner :Mr.A.Rajini For Respondents:Mr.K.Chellapandian, Additional Advocate General Mr.R.Karthikeyan, Addl.Govt.Pleader ORDER The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition challenging an order passed by the second respondent refusing to grant permission to the petitioner to hold a peaceful Dharna on 26.09.2011 for protesting the Police firing at Paramakudi. 2.Heard Mr.A.Rajini, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Chellapandian, the learned Additional Advocate General along with Mr.R.Karthikeyan, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. 3.Seeking permission to hold a peaceful dharna to protest the Police firing that took place on 11.09.2011 at Paramakudi, the petitioner made a representation on 20-9-2011 on behalf of the Bahujan Samaj Party. The request was rejected by the second respondent by an order dated 22-9-2011 Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition. 4.The present writ petition forms part of a batch of about five writ petitions, in which the requests made by similar organizations were rejected by the concerned authorities. Therefore, all the writ petitions taken up together for hearing. 5.In the first instance, Mr.K.Chellapandian, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that since the date on which the petitioners in all the five writ petitions wanted to hold meetings or conduct demonstration has already passed, nothing survives for adjudication in the writ petitions But the dismissal of the writ petitions on that ground would not actually resolve the problem, since the petitioners in the batch of writ petitions might submit one more application seeking permission to do the same thing on a different date. Therefore, I impressed upon the learned Additional Advocate General the futility of dismissing the writ petition on the ground that they had become infructuous. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 6.Thereafter the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that since different organizations want to organize protest meetings at different places on different dates, the burden of providing security would be heavy on the Police force. Therefore, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that atleast if all of them agree to hold demonstration or organize meetings on a single day at a particular place, it would be easy for the Police to manage. But it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the writ petitions that time is not yet ripe for the various groups to unite and that since the petitioners in each of the writ petitions have a different agenda, it would be impossible for all of them to come together. 7.In the light of the above statement, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that permission could be granted to the petitioners if this writ petitioner as well as the petitioners in the other writ petitions agree to certain conditions. The learned Additional Advocate General also circulated a list of conditions subject to which permission could be granted. While the petitioners accepted some of the conditions, they objected to some others. However, there was a broad consensus with regard to the day, time and venue. 8.Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and a direction is issued to the respondents to permit the organisation of the petitioner to hold a demonstartion in the form of fasting from 9.00 a.m., to 4.00 p.m., on 20.11.2011 at the Ambiga Theater Junction, Vaigai Colony, East Main Road, Madurai (Anna Nagar Police Station, Limit). The office bearers shall ensure that there will be no damage to the public properties and the persons participating shall not carry any kind of weapons or sticks. The organisers shall also ensure that the fasting takes place peacefully without any hindrance either to the flow of traffic or to the members of the public and without inciting violence or offending the sentiments of people belonging to the other communities. No costs Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl.side) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai District. 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Thallakulam, Madurai City. 3.The Inspector of Police, Thallakulam, Madurai City. ` +1CC to M/S.A.Rajini, Advocate. SR.No.137046. MPK W.P.(MD)No.11149 of 2011 RP/14.11.2011/2P/5C. 21-10-2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/