Partly allowed

Kathiresan, v. the Supdt.of Police

Madras HC22 Dec 2014WP(MD)/20399/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court examined a writ petition challenging the rejection of police permission for a public meeting and death anniversary. While noting the petitioner's criminal history which justified police caution, the Court granted restricted permission for the funeral function only, disallowing the broader public meeting.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted for the death anniversary celebration from 07:00 p.m. to 09:00 p.m.; request for the larger public meeting refused.

Kathiresan, Vs the Supdt.of Police — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 22.12.2014

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.20399 of 2014 and

¶7

M.P.(MD).Nos.1 and 2 of 2014

¶8

Kathiresan ... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The Superintendent of Police, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin.

¶11

2.The Inspector of Police, Nalatinputhur Police Station, Tuticorin District. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order issued by the 2^nd respondent in his proceedings Nil dated 09.12.2014 and quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Seemaraj

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.V.Muruganandam Additional Govt. Pleader

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

Heard the Learned counsel for the petitioner and the Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶17

2.The petitioner has preferred the instant writ of certiorari in calling for the records relating to the impugned order issued by the second respondent in his proceedings Nil dated 09.12.2014 and to quash the same.

¶18

3.According to the petitioner, he was elected as a Panchayat President for two times and he is doing so many welfare to the public in the said post. Also that he is holding the post of District Deputy Secretary of "Viduthalai Siruthaigal Katchi". His brother viz., Venkatesh died 21 years back and his brother also did many social work to the public for the past 21 years. He is conducting death anniversary of his deceased brother Venkatesan without any remarks and the death anniversary was conducted in a peaceful manner.

¶19

4.The death anniversary of the petitioner's brother Venkatesan is scheduled to take place on 28.12.2014 along with the death anniversary of petitioner's brother, their party decided to conduct public meeting to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ explain the conference held at Salem for 'right to education'. He made a representation dated 05.12.2014 to the second respondent seeking

¶20

¶21

permission and protection to conduct death anniversary and public meeting and also sent the copy to the first respondent.

¶22

5.The real grievance of the petitioner is that the Second Respondent after receiving the representation, passed an impugned order on 09.12.2014 rejecting the request of the petitioner by assailing some flimsy reasons/grounds. Also that the petitioner was not provided with an opportunity by the second respondents before passing the impugned order. That apart, without conducting any enquiry, the second respondent had passed the impugned order dated 09.12.2014.

¶23

6.The Learned counsel for the Petitioner urges before this Court that the impugned order dated 09.12.2014 passed by the second respondent is in violation of the right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, besides affecting the right of the petitioner. As such, the said impugned order is an illegal and arbitrary one.

¶24

7.The Learned counsel for the petitioner projects an argument that the second respondent had failed to appreciate that the death anniversary of petitioner's brother was conducted being the last 21 years in a peaceful manner and no untoward incident had taken place, while conducting the death anniversary. Although more, the death anniversary function of this brother, according to the petitioner would not disturb cordial relationship between the people/public.

¶25

8.Lastly, it is the stand of the petitioner that no untoward incident took place while conducting death anniversary in the past and in any event the impugned order of the second respondent is liable to be set aside since the same is not infirmity with law.

¶26

9.Per contra, it is the submission of the Additional Government Pleader for the respondents that the petitioner's brother Venkatesh was murdered some 20 years back and it was done due to caste clashes and it was a revenge murder. Further, celebrating his own brother's death anniversary is a personal/private affair and the petitioner tried to use it to create animosity in the guise of conducting public meeting.

¶27

10.The Learned Additional Government Pleader proceeds to contend that the if the petitioner brings his caste leaders and conduct public meeting, then it would create tough time for the law enforcing authorities to prevent caste clashes and that apart, the petitioner by using his position as panchayat President, he encroached Odai Poramboke land to build a statute of his deceased brother and in this regard on a complaint by Village Administrative Officer, a case was registered on 04.01.2013 in crime No.3/13 under Section 153(A) of I.P.C and Section 4 of Disfigurement Act against him and this year too in his representation seeking permission to conduct public meeting, he mentioned that the leader of a caste outfit is going to participate. The respondents taking into account of the unrest being created among the people of the village, rejected the representation of the petitioner for conducting the meeting on 28.12.2014 setting reasons thereto.

¶28

11.The prime plea taken on behalf of the respondents is that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ representation of the petitioner dated 05.12.2014 was rejected by the respondents based on valid reasons and the foremost duty of law enforcing

¶29

¶30

authorities is to create and maintain a feeling of security in the minds of people/public by providing protection.

¶31

12.The Learned Additional Government Pleader take a stand that before passing an order viz., the impugned order it is not necessary for the law enforcing authority to consult the petitioner and the only thing it is required to be taken note of the petitioner is that whether the impugned order passed is good for public at large or not.

¶32

13.The Learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents brings to the notice of this Court as per the version of the Village Administrative Officer in his complaint lodged against the petitioner on 04.01.2013, the petitioner is celebrating his brother's death anniversary only for the last two years by doing annadanam and before that, this death anniversary did not come to the notice of the police. Moreover, the petitioner endeavor to install of his brother's statute on Odai Poromboke land and made an attempt to invite caste leaders for the function created tension among the public, only because of the strict vigil and preventive measures on the part of the police officials tension among the people of the area was reduced considerably. In reality, a case was registered against the petitioner for trying to build a statue of his brother on the Government land.

¶33

14.Besides the above, the Learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents submits that the petitioner is involved in many criminal cases and some of them are grave in nature and nearly 14 cases are registered against him beginning from the year 1990 till the year 2004 under various Sections ranging from Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 5 under Indian Explosives Substances Act, 1908.

¶34

15.It cannot be gainsaid that there is an obligation upon the state to preserve the life of every person. When an individual complies of the deprivation of his life or personal liberty then the Court of Law to decide whether there is a law athorising such deprivation and whether in a given case, the procedure prescribed by such law is reasonable, fair, just and not fanciful and whimsical and not arbitrary, in the considered opinion of this Court. Also that the enjoyment of the quality peaceful life is the essence of guaranteed right in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, the freedom of religions is subject to the interest of public order so that, it would not authorise the outrage of the religious feelings of another class with a deliberate indent as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court MODI V. STATE OF UTTERPRADESH, AIR 1957 SC 620 .

¶35

16.It is not in dispute that a citizen of India has a right to enforce his fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution of India in regard to the conduct of a meeting peaceably and one can assemble even without arms. But this right is subjected to certain restrictions to be imposed in the interest of public order or public convenience or sovereignty and integrity of India under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it is quite clear that the right to conduct public meeting even though it is a right guaranteed under the Constitution of India, the authority concerned can impose some https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ restrictions by taking note of the paramount interest of the society at large and the well being of common public. The only rider is that when

¶36

¶37

imposing necessary or some restrictions, the same should not be in a capricious manner or in an illegal manner or based on irrelevant considerations as the case may be.

¶38

17.No wonder, an order refusing permission to conduct public meeting should not be cemented on surmises, assumptions, presumptions and not even any hypothetical basis, in the considered opinion of this Court.

¶39

18.At this stage, the Learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondents invites this Court that if the petitioner wants to conduct the death anniversary celebration of his deceased brother Venkatesh, then the police authorities are ready to consider his request in accordance with law. However, the police had already declined to grant permission for the conduct of public meeting at Kilavipatti Village on 28.12.2014 and the order of rejection is valid in law.

¶40

19.It is to be noted that for the impugned order of rejection dated 09.12.2014 passed by the second Respondent it is quite clear that the rejection of permission was based on the reason that the Kilavipatti Village is a small village and it will cause hindrance to traffic and also that in the said village there is no proper place to conduct the public meeting. The two reasons assigned by the police for rejection of the permission in the impugned order were that (i)the death anniversary celebration of Venkatesh is a family affair of petitioner's family and if the said function is conducted in a public place, then there is a possibility of cropping up of 'Law and order problem'. The third reason is that the said village different community people are living/residing and if public meeting is conducted then the unity of the village would get affected and as such, the permission in issue was negatived.

¶41

20.This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents and noticed their contentions.

¶42

21.It is true that the right to conduct a public meeting is a right guarantee to every citizen of India, Equally there is no section known yet another available fact that the citizen can assemble in a peaceful manner and indulge in any demonstration. In fact in democracy one cannot stifle a voice of dissent. But at the same time, it is to be appreciated that the right to conduct a public meeting is subject to certain restrictions to be enforced by the statute or by the law enforcing authority concerned. The right to conduct a public meeting is not a absolute right although the said right is enshrined under the Constitution of India in the considered opinion of this Court. It is to be remembered that the society's interest is paramount and the interest of the public at large is sacrosanct, which cannot be sacrificed at any cost.

¶43

22.As far as the present case is concerned, the Respondents apprehend law and problem if the permission to conduct a public meeting on 28.12.2014 at Kilavipatti Village is granted. Also on behalf of the Respondents, it mentioned that as on date out of the 14 cases pending against the petitioner in one case the petitioner is said to have https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ acquitted and the remaining cases are pending against him. In fact the said cases are registered under various crime numbers and also under

¶44

¶45

Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4 and 5 of Indian Explosives Substances Act.

¶46

23.Besides the above, the petitioner is a History sheeter (H.S.No.525/2000 dated 26.02.2000) at Nalattinputhur Police Station. The petitioner is involved in grave nature of offences like 395, 307 and 302 of I.P.C., more fully and particularly described in paragraph (f) of the counter filed by the second respondent.

¶47

24.Be that as it may, in view of the fact that the petitioner is desirous of conducting the death anniversary celebration of his brother Venkatesh at Kilavipatti Village on 28.12.2014 at Melacolony Public Thidal, Kovilpatti Taluk, Thoothukudi District, this Court grants permission to the petitioner only to conduct death anniversary celebration of his deceased brother Venkatesh on 28.12.2014 from 07.00 p.m to 09.00 p.m in this regard, it is open to the petitioner to subject necessary petition/application before the second respondent/The Inspector of Police, Nalattinputhur Police Station, Kovilpatti Taluk, Thoothukudi District seeking police protection for the conduct of the death anniversary celebration of his brother Venkatesh and for obtaining license/permission to conduct the said function on 28.12.2014 from 07.00 p.m to 09.00 p.m. In other respects, the permission sought for by the petitioner to conduct the public meeting on 28.12.2014 as per his representation dated 05.12.2014 is not acceded by this Court. It is open to the Respondents 1 and 2/Police to impose any other condition in regard to the death anniversary celebration on 28.12.2014 at the aforesaid village.

¶48

With the aforesaid directions and observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶49

Sd/Assistant Registrar (T&P) /True copy/

¶50

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶51

To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin. 2.The Inspector of Police, Nalatinputhur Police Station, Tuticorin District. +1cc to MR.K.SEEMARAJ, ADVOCATE IN SR : 68506 +1CC TO THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, IN SR : 68663

¶52

Ns SR : 24.12.2014 : 5p/5c

¶53

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶54

W.P.(MD)No.20399 of 2014 22.12.2014

Kathiresan, v. the Supdt.of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kathiresan, v. the Supdt.of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Balasundarambal, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Arayar Srinivasan, Vs the Secretary

V.Thangavelu, Vs the District Collector

Manimuthu, Vs the Assistant Engineer

K.R.Vellaisamy, Vs the Executive Engineer

A.Karuppuchami Vs the Superintendent of Police