The right to assemble peacefully and protest is a fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), and 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India. The police cannot reject permission for a procession based on imaginary apprehensions of law and order problems.

ORDER :

1. This Writ Petition for mandamus is initially filed to declare the inaction of the respondents in not granting permission to the 1st petitioner Trust to conduct Maha Padayatra from ‘Amaravati to Arasavalli’ from Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Venkatapalem, Amaravati Capital City to Arasavalli, Sri Suryanarayana Swamy Temple in Srikakulam District, as per the schedule and route map furnished to the respondents, as illegal and violative of Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b) and 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India and consequently, sought direction to the respondents 2 to 18 to forthwith grant permission to the 1st petitioner Trust to conduct the said Maha Padayatra as per the route map submitted by them to the respondents.

2. The petitioners also, as per the permission accorded to the petitioners in I.A. No. 2 of 2022 to amend the prayer, sought declaration that the impugned order, dated 08.09.2022, in Rc. No. 1051/L&O-III/2022 passed by the 2nd respondent-Director General of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh, rejecting permission to conduct Maha Padayatra, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b) and 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India and consequently, sought permission to the 1st petitioner Trust to conduct Maha Padayatra as per the schedule submitted by them from 12.09.2022 to 11.11.2022, by permitting the respondent police officials to regulate the said Maha Padayatra according to Section 30(3) of the Police Act, 1861 and also prayed to pass any order deemed fit in the circumstances of the case by moulding the relief if necessary in the interest of justice.

3. Facts germane to dispose of this Writ Petition may briefly be stated as follows:

(a) The 1st petitioner is a charitable trust registered in the name and style “M/s. Amaravati Parirakshna Samiti” represented by its Secretary. As per the case pleaded by the petitioners, its main object is to protect the interest of farmers, who have sacrificed their livelihood by giving their agricultural lands to the Government for establishing capital city for the newly carved out State of Andhra Pradesh under the Land Pooling Scheme carved out under Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority Act (hereinafter called as “A.P. CRDA Act”) and the Rules made thereunder of 2015. It is stated that about 30,000 farmers have given their lands for the purpose of forming the capital city and they have also surrendered their lands to the Government for the said purpose. However, after there is a change in the administrative affairs of the State Government, a proposal was made to introduce the new concept of having three capitals for the State of Andhra Pradesh. An enactment was also brought into existence by the present Government. The farmers, who felt aggrieved by the same, have questioned the decision of the Government in abolishing the AP CRDA Act and bringing new enactment in its place to establish three capitals for the present State of Andhra Pradesh. It is alleged that some of the farmers have challenged the abolition of the AP CRDA Act in the High Court. It is further stated that the petitioners have also to air their grievance and to raise their voice to convince the authorities at the helm of the present Government to reconsider their decision that they have previously held Maha Padayatra from Amaravati to Tirupati. When a permission was rejected by the police to conduct the said Maha Padayatra that they have conducted the said Maha Padayatra as per the directions given by this Court in a writ petition filed by the 1st petitioner Trust. It is alleged that now the 1st petitioner Trust and its members intend to conduct Maha Padayatra with the farmers from Amaravati to Arasavalli to air their voice to ventilate their grievance from 12.09.2022 to 11.11.2022. Therefore, when a written request was made to the 2nd respondent Director General of Police and other respondents, who are Superintendents of Police of the districts through which they intend to con