1 WP.8243.2011.sxw mnm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8243 OF 2011 Premanand Vijay Tiwarkar ...Petitioner Vs. District Collector Ratnagiri & Anr. ...Respondents Mr. Sunip Sen i/b. Mr. P.M. Jadhav, Advocate for Petitioner Mr. S.K. Shinde, ‘A’ Panel Counsel for Respondent State CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. Date : 11 October 2011. P.C. 1. Leave to make correction in paragraph 1 of the memo of the Petition. 2. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 3. This Petition is under Articles 226, 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. The Petitioner contends that it is filed on behalf of the people of village of Mithgavane as mentioned in paragraphs 1 and 5. The Petitioner submits that village Mithgavane is in the District of Ratnagiri and that the people in the said village and in the other villages of Ratnagiri District are opposing the setting up of the nuclear plant at Jaitapur in Ratnagiri District. It is submitted that a committee comprising of two former Judges are going to visit said village for the purpose of recording the news and concerns of the people in the villages in Ratnagiri District regarding the installation of nuclear power project at Jaitapur. It is submitted that the Committee will hear the people in a closed hall at Mithgavane, but the Respondents have refused to grant permission for such meeting by the impugned order dated 1 October 2011 Exhibit-A to the Petition. 2 WP.8243.2011.sxw 4. It is submitted that the reference is made in the said order to some untoward incident which had taken place in the past, but the Committee of the retired Judges is not going to address any public meeting, but they will be only sitting in a closed Hall and will listen to the people who will go there to express their grievances about the Jaitapur Nuclear Power Plant. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also relied on the order dated 13 September 2011 passed by this Court in PIL(ST) No.22439 of 2011 wherein also the authority had refused to grant permission for an indoor meeting. This Court directed the Respondents to permit the Petitioners to hold an indoor meeting, subject to certain conditions. 6. Mr. Shinde, learned AGP has opposed the petition and supported the impugned order dated 1 October 2011. It is further submitted by the learned AGP that since a large number of people gather outside the closed hall, it becomes necessary for the authorities to exercise their statutory powers such as under Section 144 of Criminal Procedure Code. 7. The learned AGP further submits that since the organisers call the members of the committee as “judicial commission” it may mislead the people into believing that the Government has appointed them. 8. Having hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we find considerable substance in the submission made by the learned AGP that the organisers of the meeting cannot call the committee or group of persons a “Judicial Commission” and the learned Counsel for the Petitioner also agrees that the organisers will not call the members of the Committee a “judicial commission” or any “Commission” for that matter. 3 WP.8243.2011.sxw 9. Subject to the above, we are of the view that when two former Judges are attending only a closed meeting in a hall for the purpose of hearing local people, the authorities should not prevent them from having such a meeting. We also record the statement of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that at any given point of time more than 30 people will not be present in the meeting hall. 10.The authorities will be at liberty to exercise their powers in accordance with law to regulate the people gathering outside the meeting hall. 11.The Petition is disposed of accordingly in terms of the aforesaid order. CHIEF JUSTICE ROSHAN DALVI, J.