1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN Writ Petition(MD)No.13964 of 2011 P.Pandi ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai. 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Usilampatti, Madurai District. 3.The Inspector of Police, Usilampatti Town Police Station, Madurai District. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order issued by the third respondent in his Proceedings in Na.Ka.No.669/Aa.A.Usilai/11 dated 06.12.2011 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the second and third respondents to grant permission for conducting one day demonstration to be held on 09.12.2011 or any other date near Usilampatti Bus Stop, Usilampatti, Madurai District. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vanchinathan For Respondents : Mr.M.Alagudevan, Special Govt. Pleader O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, challenging an order passed by the third respondent rejecting the request of the petitioner to hold demonstrations on 09.12.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2.Heard Mr.S.Vanchinathan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Alagudevan, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents. 3.The petitioner is a member of the Vivasayeegal Viduthalai Munnai, which is an organisation of peasants and agricultural labourers. They sought permission from the respondents to hold a demonstration on Mullai Periyar issue, on 09.12.2011 near Usilampatti Bus Stop. The third respondent has rejected the request of the petitioner by the impugned order. 4.The only reason stated in the impugned order is that court cases are pending on the issue and that the demonstration may create discard among people belonging to two different States. 5.But the respondents do not claim that in Usilampatti area, there are persons hailing from the other State. The pendency of the case before the Supreme Court has nothing to do with the attempt made by the petitioner to express their opinion freely on the issue. 6.The statement in the impugned order that in Kumuli, Kambam and Theni areas, the circumstances prevailing are not conducive, is also not a reason in view of the fact that the petitioner wants to hold demonstrations only in Usilampatti. But the petitioner has made a positive averment that even in Theni District, permission has been given to political leaders to hold demonstrations. Therefore, when permission has been granted even in sensitive areas, to the political parties, the agriculturists whose very survival depend upon water, cannot be prevented from expressing their voice. The validity of their grievance may ultimately depend upon the decision of the highest Court of the land. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to hold demonstrations from 10.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. on 09.12.2011. The petitioner shall ensure that there is no hindrance to the free flow of traffic and that there is no hate speech against the people of the other State. Consequently, M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Regsitrar(Records) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Usilampatti, Madurai District. 3.The Inspector of Police, Usilampatti Town Police Station, Madurai District. +One Cc to Mr.S.Vanchinathan, Advocate, SR.No.42969 KM rl/5 c- 8.12.2011 Writ Petition(MD)No.13964 of 2011 08.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/