1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:21-10-2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD)No.11065 of 2011 And M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011 T.Saravana Pandian :Petitioner -Vs- 1.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai District. 2.The Inspector of Police, E1-K.Pudur Police Station, Madurai City, Madurai District. 3.The Inspector of Police, E3, Anna Nagar Police Station, Madurai City, Madurai District. 4.The Inspector of Police, Thilagar "Thidal Police Station, Madurai City. :Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to permit the petitioner to arrange a place for condolence fasting in 1) K.Pudur Bus Stand, Madurai or 2) Elephant Tape (Near Naveen Bakery), Anna Nagar, 3) Madurai of Junction of North and West Masi Street of Madurai City respectively, the respondents No.2 to 4 jurisdiction, one day fast from 10 a.m., to 5.00 p.m., on 30.09.2011 and also to give adequate Police protection. For Petitioner :Mr.R.Santhanan 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 seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to grant permission to the petitioner to hold a condolence meeting in the form of day long fasting, for protesting the firing incident that took place at Paramakudi. 2.Heard Mr.R.Santhanan, 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. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3.Claiming to be the District Secretary of an organisation called Tamizhaga Makkal Munntra Kazhagam, the petitioner made an application for the grant of permission to hold a condolence meeting and to conduct a day long fasting, to protest against the incident in which police firing took place at Paramakudi on 11-9-2011. But citing several reasons, the second respondent rejected the request. Thereafter, the petitioner is before this Court. 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. 6.Thereafter the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that since the 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 demonstrations 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 all 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. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 8.Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and a direction is issued to the respondents to permit the organisation of the petitioner to hold a demonstration in the form of fasting from 9.00 a.m., to 4.00 p.m., on 13.11.2011 at the Ambiga Theater Junction, Vaigai Colony, East Main Road, Madurai (Anna Nagar Police Station Limit). The office bearers of the petitioner 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 / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1.The Commissiioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai District. 2.The Inspector of Police, E1-K.Pudur Police Station, Madurai City, Madurai District. 3.The Inspector of Police, E3, Anna Nagar Police Station, Madurai City, Madurai District. 4.The Inspector of Police, Thilagar "Thidal Police Station, Madurai City. +1CC to Mr.R.Santhanam, Advocate. SR.No.36869. MPK RP/09.11.2011/3p/6c. W.P.(MD)No.11065 of 2011 21-10-2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/