IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 5302 of 2009 Between: Praja Shanthi Party, represented by its Founder/President, Sri Kilari Anand S/o. Barnabas, 382, Aparajitha Colony, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Election Commission, represented by Chief Electoral Officer, Budhabhavan, R.P.Road, Secunderabad. 2 The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 The Commissioner of Police, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or order more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in making attempts to stop the meeting of the Petitioners Praja Shanthi Party scheduled to be held on 18.3.2009 between 4 p.m. and 10 p.m. at Nizam grounds, Hyderabad, though the Deputy Commissioner, Central Zone, Hyderabad, having accorded permission vide proceedings No. HC-1/980/2009 dt. 10.3.2009 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct all the respondents to allow the Praja Shanthi party to conduct the public meeting on 18.3.2009 at Nizam grounds between 4 P.M. and 10 P.M. in accordance with the permission of the Deputy Commissioner vide proceedings No.HC- I/980/2009 dt. 10.3.2009 Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.N.RAVI PRASAD Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sri S. Niranjan Reddy Counsel for Respondent Nos.2&3: Government Pleader for Home The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) The petitioner is Praja Shanthi Party which wants to convene its public meeting for the purpose of election campaign on 18-03-2009 between 4.00 PM and 10.00 PM at Nizam Grounds, Hyderabad. It has been submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that though permission was granted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Zone, Hyderabad to convene a meeting and though owner of the ground, namely Principal, Nizam College had permitted to use the ground for convening a public meeting, by virtue of order dated 16-03-2009, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Zone, Hyderabad has withdrawn the permission for convening the meeting at the place referred to hereinabove. The petitioner has been aggrieved by the order dated 16-03-2009, which is not filed along with the material papers, but at the time of hearing, a copy of the said order is placed on record. Learned advocate, Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, has appeared for respondent No.1, whereas learned Government Pleader for Home has appeared for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. It has been submitted by the learned Government Pleader appearing for the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Zone that in pursuance of instructions given by the Election Commission of India, educational institutions, including their grounds, are not to be used for the purpose of convening political meetings and, therefore, by order dated 16-03-2009, the permission which had been granted earlier has been cancelled. Learned advocate Sri Niranjan Reddy, appearing for respondent No. 1 has relied upon the instructions given by the Election Commission of India with regard to convening political meetings for the purpose of election. He has drawn our attention to para 9 of the said instructions which restrains convening of political meetings in educational institutions including their grounds. It has been submitted by him that the petitioner wanted to convene a meeting in the ground of Nizam College and, therefore, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Zone has not permitted the petitioner to convene the meeting. We have heard the learned advocates. We are not impressed by the argument advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner to the effect that no inconvenience would be caused to anyone if the petitioner is permitted to convene its meeting at the Nizam College Grounds. It has been further submitted by him that by virtue of Clause 6 of the instructions, the petitioner can be permitted to convene its meeting at the place in question and he has also submitted that the ground on which the meeting is to be convened is a separate one and it is not connected to the college. As stated hereinabove, we are not impressed by the aforestated argument of the learned advocate for the petitioner for the reason that the Election Commission of India has prohibited use of educational institutions and their grounds for convening political campaigns and meetings. Admittedly, the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.39,375/- to an educational institution for the purpose of convening meeting and that denotes that the petitioner wanted to use the place owned by an educational institution. By virtue of Clause 9 contained in the instructions, use of educational instructions for the purpose of political campaigns and rallies is prohibited. In the circumstances, the submission with regard to not causing inconvenience to anyone becomes irrelevant. We do not find any substance in the petition and, therefore, the petition is rejected. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 18th March, 2009. ks