IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8736 of 2008 Between: Madiga Reservation Porata Reservation Samithi (MRPS), Andhra Pradesh Rep., by its President Sri Manda Krishna Madiga, Parsigutta, Secunderabad. … Petitioner AND The Deputy Commissioner of Police Central Zone, Hyderabad & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri P. Veera Reddy Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Home This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8736 of 2008 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare order dated 15.04.2008 of respondent No.1, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. The petitioner, which is a society registered under the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001, claims to be interested in protecting the interest of people belonging to Madiga caste. In connection with the categorization among the Madiga community, it seeks to take out a rally and hold a public meeting. For this purpose the petitioner made an application on 21.02.2008 before respondent No.1 for permission to take out a mass rally from Indira Park to Baghlingampally on 21.04.2008. The said application was rejected by order dated 15.04.2008. Following the said order, the petitioner made another application on 18.04.2008 to respondent No.1, wherein it requested for permission to conduct a rally from Goshala to Indira Park on 21.04.2008 from 12.00 noon and a public meeting at Indira Park with 5000 or above MRPS activists. It further undertook that the meeting will be closed by 8.00 p.m. No orders have been passed on the said application so far and the petitioner filed the present writ petition questioning rejection of his earlier request by respondent No.1 by order dated 15.04.2008. Heard Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home and perused the record. Inasmuch as the petitioner itself moved a fresh application before respondent No.1 for permission to hold a rally on a changed route, namely, Goshala to Indira Park, I am of the view that it cannot question the validity of order dated 15.04.2008. As regards the fresh application made by the petitioner, not much time elapsed since its filing for respondent No.1 to pass an order. However, in view of the urgency involved the petitioner moved this writ petition within less than one day of making the application. In a democracy, the right of a citizen or an organization to hold rallies and public meetings need not be over emphasized. But, at the same time, the organizers shall realize their responsibility to see that such rallies and meetings do not affect general public and create law and order problems. The right of the citizens to ventilate their grievances through rallies and meetings and the responsibility of the State to prevent inconvenience to the public and maintain law and order in course of exercise of such rights by its subjects are required to be balanced. Since the application filed by the petitioner before respondent No.1 is yet to be disposed of, I refrain from expressing final opinion on the merits of the request of the petitioner. Suffice at this stage to observe that the power conferred by Section 21 of the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348-F on respondent No.1 is required to be exercised in a fair, proper and non-arbitrary manner. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner undertook on behalf of the petitioner that its President Sri Manda Krishna Madiga would take personal responsibility for peaceful holding of rally and public meeting and he will file an affidavit to that effect before respondent No.1. He also submitted that the petitioner would abide by all the reasonable conditions that respondent No.1 may impose for granting permission. Having regard to the abovementioned submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to consider and dispose of the application filed by the petitioner on 18.04.2008 before 19.04.2008 in the light of the observations made hereinabove. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.11588 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 19.04.2008 ES