1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD)No.13996 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2011 V.Ramakrishnan : Petitioner vs. 1.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram. 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District. 3.The Inspector of Police, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District. : Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.276/Thu.Kaa.Ka./Cam.Par.2011 dated 3.12.2011 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to grant permission to the petitioner's organisation to conduct their 11th National Conference and cultural programmes scheduled to be held on 10.12.2011 and 11.12.2011 at Thevar Thirumana Mandapam, Paramakudi and Santhai Thidal, Paramakudi Main Road, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District. For Petitioner : Mr.G.R.Swaminathan For Respondents : Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss, Government Advocate. O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, challenging an order passed by the second respondent refusing to grant permission to the petitioner to hold a conference on human rights. 2. Heard Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. The petitioner claims to be the President of an organisation by name "Human Rights Organisation". According to the petitioner, the organisation had conducted various awareness programmes on social issues such as bonded labour, female infanticide legal aid camp etc. 4. The petitioner wanted to conduct their 11th National Conference at Paramakudi, for spear heading the cause of fisherman. Therefore, the petitioner made a request to the respondents for permission to hold a rally and a Conference for two days in a Kalyana Mandapam. The request was turned down by the second respondent by the impugned order dated 3.12.2011. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 5. The only reason stated in the impugned order is that after the shooting incident at Paramakudi on 11.9.2011, a uneasy calm is prevailing and that prohibitory orders under Section 30 (2) of the District Police Act, are in force. Apart from this reason, the second respondent has not pointed out any other reason which would deprive the petitioner from holding a Conference. There is no allegation that the petitioner or his organisation belongs one or the other groups, who have come to lodge complaints against each other. There is also no complaint in the impugned order that the petitioner wants to hold a Conference with regard to the shooting incident that took place at Paramakudi. As per the affidavit filed by the petitioner, he is not seeking to hold a Conference for ventilating the grievance of the people at Paramakudi. In other words, the incident that happened at Paramakudi on 11.9.2011 or thereafter, is not going to be the subject matter of the National Conference proposed to be conducted. In such circumstances, I am of the view that there is no rationale in preventing the petitioner from holding a Conference just for the purpose of espousing the cause of fisherman, with which the incident at Paramakudi had nothing to do. 6. Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss, learned Government Advocate submitted, on instructions, that at least six similar requests made by various groups including the request made by Veera Maravar Peravai, Thamizhaga Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam etc., were rejected by the respondents. Therefore, he contended that the respondents cannot pass an order in favour of the petitioner, that would amount to hostile discrimination of the other groups. 7. The petitioner has not come up with an allegation that they have been singled out by the respondents. It is true that the respondents have rejected the request made by every organisation in the past two months. To that extent they have maintained consistency. But following the principles of law, evolved by this Court and the Supreme Court, this Court has also been consistent in its approach towards such issues. Therefore, I cannot also discriminate against the petitioner. 8. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the respondents are directed to give permission to the petitioner to hold the Conference alone as proposed on 10th and 11th December 2011 at Thevar Thirumana Mandapam, Paramakudi, Paramakudi Main Road, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District and at Santhai Thidal, Paramakudi Main Road, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District. But https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 it is made clear that the conduct of any programme at Santhai Thidal will depend upon the permission given by the Paramakudi Municipality. The consent given by the Licensee of Santhai Thidal will not be accepted as a consent given by the Municipality. 9. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(Writs) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram. 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District. 3.The Inspector of Police, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District. +One cc to Mr.S.Suresh, Advocate, SR.No.42964 Svn rl/5c – 8.12.2011 W.P.(MD)No.13996 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/