WP(C) 2380/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE U B SAHA The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner, who is the brother of the deceased Bipul Bora, allegedly a member of the United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA) a banned organization, for a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner for holding the Adya Sradha Ceremony of the said deceas ed Bipul Bora at Dadhar village under Amguri Police Station in the district of S ibsagar and also not to disturb in performing the said Sradha ceremony and the v isitors and invitees to attend the Sradha ceremony to be held on 19.06.2009. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, namely, Mr A Choudhury as well as Mr D C Chakraborty learned Central Government Standing Co unsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and learned Additional Senior Government A dvocate, Mr P Roy for the respondent Nos. 3 to 6. As proposed and agreed upon by the learned counsel for the parti es, the instant writ petition is taken up for disposal at this motion stage. The petitioner is apprehending that while they would perform the Sradha ceremony of his deceased brother Bipul Bora on 19.06.2009, the respondents particularly the police forces may create disturbance either for the petitioner or for the visit ors and the respected persons while participating in the Sradha ceremony. Hence, this writ petition. Mr Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that ho lding of Sradha ceremony is a religious right of the petitioner and he has also the right to invite the respectable persons and the common people of the village , where he is living, in the Sradha ceremony of his deceased brother as his brot her died allegedly in an encounter with the police personnel for which the petit ioner is apprehending that at the time of Sradha ceremony the police forces may create some problem for him. Hence, a specific order is required from the Court. In a similar matter also, i.e. in the case of Sri Jagat Gogoi -Vs- Union of Ind ia and Others in WP(C) No. 4597 of 2008, this Court also allowed the petitioner of that case to hold the Sradha ceremony in accordance with law and the responde nts were also directed not to interfere with the Sradha ceremony except in accor dance with law. Therefore, in the instant case also, the same order may be passe d. Mr Chakraborty as well as Mr Roy, learned Central Government Sta nding Counsel submit that they have no objection so far as the Sradha ceremony i s concerned, but at the same time there is every possibility that some members o f the banned organization may be present there at the time of the Sradha ceremon y. Therefore, the respondents may be allowed to maintain the law and order in an d around the Sradha ceremony so that the unwanted persons may not be there or ev en if these persons are available the police can take action in accordance with law. In view of the above submission, this Court is of the opinion th at it would meet the ends of justice if the petitioner is allowed to hold the Sr adha ceremony of his deceased brother in accordance with his own customary law. Accordingly, the petitioner is allowed to hold the Sradha ceremony of his deceas ed brother in accordance with their own customary law. At the same time, the re spondents are directed not to interfere with the Sradha ceremony except in accor dance with law. It is made clear that the respondents are at liberty to ensure t he law and order in and around the area as they think fit. But they should not h arass unnecessarily the invitees of the petitioners and their family members. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petiti on stands disposed of.