1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.10.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD)NO.11634 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 P.Packiyaraj ... Petitioner Versus 1.The Superintendent of Police, Theni District, Theni. 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bodinaickanoor, Theni District. 3.The Inspector of Police, Thevaram Police Station, Theni District. 4.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Thevaram Police Station, Theni District. ... Respondents PRAYER : Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order issued by the 4th respondent dated 07.10.2011 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to grant permission for condoning public meeting on 13.10.2011 or any other date before Local Body Election at Near E.B. Office, Thevaram, Theni District. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vanchinathan For Respondents : Mr.B.Pugalendhi, Special Government Pleader. O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition challenging the order passed by the 4th respondent, rejecting the request to hold a public meeting for boycotting the Local Body Elections. 2. Heard Mr.S.Vanchinathan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.B.Pugalendhi, learned Special Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that so far, more than about two lakhs farmers have committed suicide in India on account of the neglect of the agricultural sector. Therefore, as an organization espousing the cause of the agriculturists, the petitioner sought the permission of the 4th respondent to hold a public meeting, on 13.10.2011, for a boycott of the Local Body Elections Scheduled to be held on 17.10.2011 and 19.10.2011. By a non speaking one line order, the request has been rejected by the 4th respondent. 4. The learned Special Government Pleader submits that the State Election Commission had already issued a notification prohibiting people from canvassing for the boycott of polls. Therefore, the learned Special Government Pleader contended that the permission sought for cannot be granted and that the action of the petitioner will be opposed to democratic principles. 5. However, there is a small distinction between persons preventing willing voters from casting their votes and persons, who want to hold public meetings to express their anguish at the system and its frailty or fragility. The case of the petitioner falls under the second category. The right of the citizens to freely express their views not only in respect of matters relating to arts and culture but also in relation to the very system which had recognized their fundamental right of free speech, can never be curtailed. In fact, we have come to a stage whether there is an official recognition of the right of the people to reject all the candidates contesting in the election, by exercising the option to press 49(O). Therefore, the rejection order cannot be sustained. 6. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed, the fourth respondent is directed to give permission to the petitioner to hold a public meeting subject to all other conditions that are normally imposed for holding such meetings with regard to the date, time, place etc. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Records) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Theni District, Theni. 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bodinaickanoor, Theni District. 3.The Inspector of Police, Thevaram Police Station, Theni District. 4.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Thevaram Police Station, Theni District. +One CC to Mr.S.Vanchinathan, Advocate, SR.No.35318 vsm rl/6c – 12.10.2011 W.P.(MD)NO.11634 of 2011 12.10.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/