respondent went back from the assurance and issued show cause notice and in spite of giving explanation to the show cause notice, no order was passed. As the time to conduct procession and meeting was too short, the writ petitioners approached this Court on 11.4.2013 and after considering the objections raised by the appellants before the learned single Judge, he ordered to grant permission to hold procession and conduct meeting on certain conditions. An assurance was given by the leader of the party, who is also a Member of the Parliament that he will undertake to control the entire cadre, who are conducting procession and meeting and the same was also recorded by the learned single Judge and there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned single Judge. The learned counsel also submitted that all political parties viz., DMK, Congress, BJP and AIADMK conducted public meeting at Mangolai, Mylapore, Chennai and only place where the permission granted to take procession in Chennai City is from Rajarathinam Stadium to Langs Garden Road and therefore writ petitioners alone cannot be discriminated from denying permission to conduct procession and meeting on 14.4.2013, particularly when the said date is the birth anniversary of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar. Learned counsel relied on the decisions reported in AIR 1973 SC 87 (CDJ 1972 SC 441)(Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police, Ahamedabad); (1989) 2 SCC 574 (CDJ 1989 SC 643) (S. Rangarajan v. P.Jagjivan Ram): (2009) 5 SCC 212 (Destruction of Public and Private Property, In Re v. State of A.P.); (2012) 5 SCC 1 (Ramlila Maidan Incident, In Re); and Division Bench decision of this Court reported in CDJ 2008 MHC 613 (C.J.Rajan v. DSP, Myladuthurai) in support of his contentions.
