@ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.No. 2?¥%§‘ /2003 Petitioner Bhartiya Karmachari Congress Through its president Shri Rajendra Prasad Sharma S/o Late Shri Raghunandan Prasad t". .. Sharma, aged about 43 years§ 3‘9\a\::d§‘:gi$ R/o Behind Vevekknand Ashram Near Satakshi Mandir, v‘ . - ‘0 v Gali N0. II, Raipur (C.G.) $096” Q... v"v Q. VERSUS Respondents State of Chhattisgarh, through : The Secretary Home Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Collector, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Superintendent of Police Raipur Distt. Ralpur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF_:L[!_lj§ 'CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER : As given in the cause title. 2. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENT : As given in the cause title. / Shri Sunil Sinha, Addh‘ respoudents. Heaxd. By this wn‘t petition 13k Constitution of India, mo patio datad 30-8-2003, passed by Raipur), by which the permissic‘ rally was cancellad. The pctitioncr’s casc is ; union and its regi$tration nun O$ce behind Vivekanand Ashrz The petitioner had submitted Raipur, for grant of permission and the permissioxi was also gxa which five Conditions were I; petitioner was informed by w: newspaper namely Mahakaush;a1 that the permission has been‘ \ bxdvocate General, for the State] id under Amcle 226/227 of the ‘pner seeks to challenge the order the respdndent No.2 (Collector, m granted to the petitioner to hold Elat’the petitioner is a registered 1ber is 800 and having its Head m, Near Satakshi Mandir, Raipur. \ an application to the Collector, to organize a rally on 30-8-2003, ntedivide order dated 29—8—2003 in aid down, On 30—8-2003‘,~-’t.he 1y of a publication in the ‘dajly XI—HC—22 Wm “in 200 mmm aha when new a tee?m é? 31W 31193? 9—9-2003 Smt. Savita Tiwari, counsel for the petitioner. @ w??? W?! 53 . ..................................... 200 ..............................................m ................................................ Wamiiwm ammm cancelled. The petitioierfiérgialieefihe rally and around 7000 daily wage employees were invited to participate in the rally and incurred an expense of Rs.1,9 ,000/- and that permiSSion was cancelled to the utter surprise o the petitioner at about 12’0 elock. By this writ petition, the etitioner has sought relieflfor graxlt of (lixect dhmages of Rs.93,000 and for any other relief. I have heard learned cou sel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the etitioner submits that the date of rally has already been passed ow the respondents may direct to accord permisSion to the peti oner to» organize the rally on any other suitable 'date. In the f t instance there is no such relief sought in the. writ petition. T e date of rally i.e. 3018-2003 has already been expired and so f as the compensation is/concemed for that the petitioner is at lib to take appropriate action before the appropriate forum. More o er the perusal of Knnexure P/4 by which the permission was‘canc Hed it has been mentioned {hat on account of the breach of th conditions the'permission was i x cancelled. Therefore, there is €10 substance 1n this writ petition. However; for any future date th% petitioner is at liberty to move they! i / — e organize the rally and for which respondents for permission t0 there is no bar and fhe resporu ients will consider the case of the petitioher 1'11 accordanée with t1 ie prevailing rules and regulations for grant of permission for orgar jzing 111a rally. \ In View of the above, the whit petition is dismissed. A Consequently, M. (W) . P. No. 2541/2003 and I.A.No.8356[2003 stands disposed of. gown 8d!- L.C.BHADOO Judge i?