IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5767 of 2010 Between: P. Suryam … Petitioner And The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Zone, Hyderabad & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri M.V. Rama Rao for Sri J. Ramachandra Rao Counsel for the respondents: Addl. Advocate General This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5767 of 2010 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in rejecting permission to conduct public meeting by CPI (ML-New Democracy) on 13.03.2010 from 5.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. at Nizam College Grounds, Hyderabad vide order dated 09.03.2010. I have heard Sri M.V. Rama Rao representing Sri J.Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Harinath Guptha, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents. The petitioner claims to be a State Committee Member of CPI (ML-New Democracy) party. He has averred in the affidavit that his party has taken a strong stand on demanding formation of Telangana State and that for disseminating their views in support thereof, the party has decided to hold a meeting at Nizam College grounds on 13.03.2010 from 5.00 p.m. onwards. The petitioner’s application, made to respondent No.1 for granting permission for holding the public meeting, having been rejected by the impugned order, he filed the present writ petition. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that denial of permission for holding a public meeting is in violation of Article 19(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that the respondents can indeed regulate and impose reasonable restrictions, but they cannot totally deny the party’s right to assemble peacefully. The learned Additional Advocate General opposing the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a serious law and order problem in the State in the wake of a strong demand for formation of Telangana State being made by various organizations and therefore respondent No.1 having considered the prevailing situation in the Telangana area in general and Hyderabad in particular rejected the permission. I have carefully gone through the reasons contained in the impugned order of rejection. The impugned order has enumerated several instances that have taken place in the past including the incident that has taken place on 20.01.2010 at the Osmania University campus. It is also mentioned in the order that the State Legislative Assembly Budget sessions are in progress and they are likely to be continued till 30.03.2010 and that any law and order problem caused during the rally and public meeting may vitiate the peace and tranquility in the city and leads to disturbances. The impugned order also referred to the inputs received from city police sources that the proposed rally and public meeting, if permitted, is likely to result in violent acts and it is further stated that the law and order situation in the city is already surcharged necessitating imposition of prohibitory orders under Section 144 Cr.P.C. and that there is every possibility of leaders of political parties and students of various institutions joining the rally and public meeting and incite trouble. The fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and (b) is circumscribed by reasonable restrictions. Maintenance of law and order is the primary duty of the State. Where the State apprehends serious breach of peace and tranquility, it is entitled to place restrictions on the fundamental rights of the citizens. The restrictions can, if situation warrants, also include the measures to prevent rallies and public meetings. The impugned order is a self-speaking one containing cogent and germane reasons for refusing permission. It is noteworthy that the petitioner has neither controverted nor sought to impeach the correctness of the reasons contained in the impugned order. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner failed to make out any case for this Court to intervene in the matter. For the abovementioned reasons, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.7432 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 12.03.2010 ES