The police authorities can only regulate the conduct of public meetings and assemblies under the Police Act, 1861.

JUDGMENT :

R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

1. Heard Sri K.S. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri N. Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Learned Government Pleader fo Home, appearing for the respondents.

2. The appellant, who is the national president of a registered political party, viz., “Bharata Chaitanya Yuvajana Party” had sought to conduct a meeting on 04.02.2024 at Punganur Chaitanya Vedika, Punganur - Chowdepalli Road, Chadalla, Punganur Mandal. The appellant, applied to the 3rd respondent for permission to conduct a meeting, by a representation dated 02.01.2024. This application was rejected by the 3rd respondent, through his proceedings vide C.No.01/Mike/SDPO(P)/2024, dated 10.01.2024. Aggrieved by the said order of rejection, the appellant moved this Court by way of W.P.No.2350 of 2024.

3. The appellant, relying upon an earlier order of this Court dated 14.12.2023 in W.P. No. 32901 of 2023, had sought a similar order to be passed.

4. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by an order dated 02.02.2024, disposed of the writ petition with the following directions.

“(i) The petitioner shall immediately move an application before the 2nd and the 3rd respondents for permission to conduct the meeting.

(ii) This application shall set out the number of persons expected to attend, the arrangements being made for conduct of the meeting including the usage of loud speakers, etc.

(iii) The petitioner shall also give an undertaking along with the application that the said meeting would be held peacefully and without any disturbance to the public order.

(iv) The petitioner shall also give an undertaking along with the application that the meeting will be conducted for the purpose, which is indicated in the application without any deviation.

(v) Upon receiving such application, the 2nd and the 3rd respondents shall forthwith pass orders accepting or rejecting the said application.

(vi) The said application shall not be rejected except on specific grounds of obstruction of traffic or free movement of people or on the ground of a specific problem relating to public order in the area.

(viii) In the event of the petitioner filing the application, the 2nd and the 3rd respondents shall communicate the decision to the petitioner immediately.”

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed the present writ appeal.

6. Sri K.S. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri N. Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the order dated 10.01.2024 is not in accordance with Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861 (for short “the Act”), as interpreted by a Division Bench of this Court in Kaka Ramakrishna vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, 2023 (4) ALT 232. Sri K.S. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel would draw the attention of this Court to the reasons given in the order of rejection. The 3rd respondent, in the order dated 10.01.2024, had stated that the application of the appellant was being rejected as the appellant had not given the details of the places from where the people are being mobilized/attending the meeting, the mode of transport used for bringing those people, the number of vehicles that are sought to be used, the place where the vehicles would be parked, the Aadhar cards of the persons attending the meeting are collected or not, whether any identity cards or passes are issued to them or not, and all the details for conducting of proposed meeting should be given. Apart from this, the 3rd respondent also stated that the proposed land for the proposed meeting, the dias, parking and lunch is sought to be arranged in Ac.1.27 cents only, which would not be sufficient to conduct the proposed meeting if more persons attended and that no parking place for vehicles has been shown.

7. The 3rd respondent held that these defects and the fact that the meeting would affect the passage of vehicles and the movement of pilgrims going to Tirumala, as sufficient grounds to refuse permission and had rejecte