1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.02.2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN W.P(MD)No.1717 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 Tamil Nadu Central and State Government Employees Federation Rep.by General Secretary, Mr.E.Vijayakumar .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Superintendent of Police, Collectorate Campus, Virudhunagar District. 2.The Inspector of Police, North Police Station, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District. 3.K.Rajalingam .. Respondents (R3 impleaded as per order dated 17.02.2011 in MP(MD)No.2 of 2010 in WP(MD)No.1717 of 2011 by KKSJ) PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned communication dated 02.02.2011 on the file of the 2nd respondent quash the same as illegal and consequentially directing the respondents to grant permission for conducting the indoor meeting, which is to be held on 20.02.2011 in J.S.A.Mahal Cotton Market, Madurai Road, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Anbarasu For Respondent : Mr.S.Shanmugavel Additional Government Pleader ORDER The petitioner challenges the order dated 20.02.2011 on the file of the second respondent whereby and whereunder, the application submitted to provide police protection for conducting indoor meeting on 20.02.2011 in J.S.A.Mahal Cotton Market, Madurai Road, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District, was rejected. 2.The petitioner is a recognized Association of Government Employees. The Association has taken a decision to conduct a meeting at J.S.A.Mahal Cotton Market, Madurai Road, Rajapalayam in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 District of Virudhunagar. The petitioner anticipating trouble at the instance of rivals appears to have submitted an application for protection to ensure the peaceful conduct of the meeting. The said application was rejected without indicating reasons. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file the Writ Petition. 3.When the Writ Petition came up for admission on 14.02.2011, I have issued notice to the respondents and accordingly, the matter came up for further hearing today. 4.In the meantime, the 3rd respondent filed an application to implead him as a party to the Writ Petition. The 3rd respondent is stated to be the District Secretary of a recognized political party. According to the 3rd respondent, the petitioner has distributed pamphlets containing the names of various persons and there was an attempt to mislead his party cadre, by using his party flag and colours. 5.The Writ petitioner has filed an affidavit of undertaking that they will not use the party flag or colours of the political party viz., Puthiya Thamilagam Party, represented by the third respondent. The undertaking reads thus; “3. I submit that as a General Secretary of the petitioner's Association, I hereby undertake that as an organizer of the meeting, I will not use the Respondent No.3's (Puthiya Tamilagam) party flag or its colors in the meeting premises and out side. I have adverted to the apprehension of the 3rd respondent namely K.Rajalingam reflected in Para No.3 to 6 of his affidavit and therefore I further undertake, I will not use the flag or it's color in any manner whatsoever as apprehended by the 3rd respondent.” 6.The principal contention of the petitioner relates to the non- speaking order passed by the second respondent. The application submitted by the petitioner was for the purpose of providing police protection. The second respondent in his counter affidavit submitted that the representation submitted by the 3rd respondent was the primary reasons for rejecting the request, as according to him, there would be law and order problem in the event of permitting the petitioner to conduct the meeting. 7.The impugned order was passed only on the ground that there will be a law and order problem in the area. The Police cannot be heard to say that they would not grant permission to conduct meetings to express views, in case there is a threat at the instance of a rival association or another political party. The objections raised by the 3rd respondent appears to be the primary reason for rejecting the request. The 3rd respondent has very clearly stated that his objection pertains to using his party's flag and it's colours and not against conducting the meeting as such. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 8.The application submitted by the petitioner for Police protection cannot be rejected in the way in which it was rejected by the second respondent. The Association has got every right to express their views. Therefore, I am of the view that the matter requires fresh consideration by the second respondent. 9.Accordingly, the impugned order dated 20.02.2011 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the second respondent for fresh consideration. The second respondent is directed to consider the matter with notice to the petitioner and the 3rd respondent and after hearing them, dispose of the application on merits and as per law. Such exercise shall be completed by 2.00p.m. On 18.02.2011. It is made clear that the second respondent should ensure that the petitioner does not use the flag of the political party referred to in the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent. 10.The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(LA) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Collectorate Campus, Virudhunagar District. 2.The Inspector of Police, North Police Station, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District. +1cc to Mr.D.Anbarasu, Advocate Sr.No.9153 +1cc to Mr.A.S.Vaikunth, Advocate SR.No.9017 MPK akm/18.02.11 /3p-5c/ W.P(MD)No.1717 of 2011 17.02.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/