1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.06.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN Writ Petition (MD)No.6574 of 2011 M.Panimaya Maryraj ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Superintendent of Police, O/o.The Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur. 2.The Inspector of Police, East Police Station, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to grant permission as per the petitioner's request dated 18.06.2011 for conducting a public meeting on 24.06.2011 at 7 p.m. near the Gandhi park, Kumbakonam. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Sai Krishnan For Respondents : Mr.M.Govindan, Special Government Pleader. O R D E R Mr.M.Govindan, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for the final disposal at the admission stage. 2.The petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition seeking for Mandamus, to direct the respondent to grant permission to conduct a public meeting on 24.06.2011. He made an application on 18.06.2011, since no order has been passed, the present writ petition has been filed. 3.When the matter came up for admission, learned Special Government Pleader brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner had approached the respondents only by post that too with an application dated 18.06.2011 which was received by them https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 only by post on 20.06.2011 and immediately on 21.06.2011, he has presented this writ petition and the matter is listed today for admission and the matter is pending for consideration. 4.Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. 5.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as a law abiding citizen, he is entitled to conduct and express his opinion in various subjects whatsoever. As to the law and order problem is concerned, he would only state that no untoward incident will happen in the meeting. 6.As rightly pointed out by the learned Special Government Pleader that freedom of expression of a citizen is always guaranteed under the Constitution of India. But insofar as the law and order problem alone, the respondent has got the authority to look into the matter and that is why, the permission is being considered in that aspect. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in C.J.Rajan Vs.Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mayiladuthurai and another reported in (2008) 2 MLJ (Crl) 103 wherein it has been held that a citizen has the right to hold a meeting on a matter of public importance and Section 30(2) of the Police Act provides for only a regulatory power and that has to be considered by the concerned respondent police authorities who will be knowing the actual ground realities in the particular area. 7.Therefore, taking into consideration the limited request of the petitioner, the respondents are directed to consider the application dated 18.06.2011 in the light of the Division Bench judgment of this Court and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law by tomorrow morning as the petitioner has arranged meeting tomorrow. 8.With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(C.O) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.The Superintendent of Police, O/o.The Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 2.The Inspector of Police, East Police Station, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District. +One Cc to Mr.P.SaiKrishnan, Advocate, SR.No.19651 sms rl/4c – 23.6.201 Writ Petition (MD)No.6574 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/