THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.31468 OF 2011 ORDER: Heard Smt. D. Lalitha Prasad, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the Learned Government Pleader for Home. With their consent the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. The order under challenge in this Writ Petition is the proceedings of the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada dated 25.11.2011, informing the Collector and District Magistrate, Krishna that the proposed site is located in a VIP area; the State guest house is also located nearby; many VIPs keep visiting the State guest house; meetings are held in the Collector’s camp office and Sub-Collector’s office; such a huge programme in a VIP locality may cause law and order problem and traffic problem; and hence he was not recommending grant of permission. He also stated that the petitioner be advised to identify an alternative place, and apply for permission. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition the petitioner would state that last year, when they applied for permission to conduct “Christhavamaha Sabhalu” from 07.02.2010 to 10.02.2010, clearance was given by the then Commissioner of Police and others for the very same venue; there was no complaint then from any corner; and the programme went on peacefully. Smt. D. Lalitha Prasad, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, though the petitioner had submitted an application as early as on 06.04.2011 seeking permission to conduct the said sabha from 02.12.2011 to 06.12.2011, the said application was kept pending and, just on the eve of the event, the impugned proceedings were passed on 25.11.2011, and a copy made available to the petitioner only on 26.11.2011. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the previous year’s peaceful conduct of the sabha, by the petitioner, has not been taken into consideration by the third respondent though it was a relevant factor in arriving at the decision whether or not to accord permission, and the respondents may be directed to reconsider their decision not to grant permission. The fact that the meeting held in the previous year went off peacefully without any untoward incident, if true, would no doubt be a relevant factor which the third respondent ought to have considered before arriving at the decision not to grant the petitioner’s permission to conduct the sabha this year. As the sabha is scheduled to be held from 02.12.2011, just three days hence, I consider it appropriate to direct the third respondent to reconsider his decision taken on 25.11.2011, and pass orders on the petitioner’s application for grant of permission, in accordance with law, within two days. It is also made clear that this order shall not preclude the petitioner from identifying any alternative site for conducting the sabha from 02.12.2011 onwards and, in case the petitioner identifies any such venue, the third respondent shall take a decision forthwith, in accordance with law, whether or not to grant permission for the sabha to be held at the alternative place from 02.12.2011 onwards. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J November 29, 2011 Note: Issue operative portion by wire at party’s cost. B/O.MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.31468 OF 2011 November 29, 2011 MD