The main legal point established in the judgment is that fundamental freedoms, such as the right to assembly, are subject to reasonable restrictions, and the denial of such freedoms must be justified and based on relevant material.

JUDGMENT :

SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.

Heard. Rule. Heard finally by consent forthwith.

2. Petitioner No.1 claims itself to be a social organization working for assertion of fundamental and other rights of citizens of India through lawful means and further claims that it is committed to following the constitutional principles of Ambedkarian thoughts. It also declares itself to be a non-political organization. Petitioner No.2, an Indian Citizen, is a President of Nagpur District Unit of the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 in particular has stated that he has no criminal antecedents.

3. Petitioners desire to hold a workers meet at a ground known as Reshimbagh ground on 22-2-2020 from 12.00 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. This ground belongs to Nagpur Improvement Trust, but being in possession of CP and Berar Education Society, Nagpur, it is under the control of the Society for the purpose of granting permission or otherwise to hold public meeting or social gathering. Petitioners, therefore, approached the Society seeking its permission to use the ground for holding a public meeting of workers of petitioner No.1 organization. The Society granted permission to petitioner No.1 to hold such meeting on 17-2-2020, subject to payment of user and allied charges, which were paid by the petitioners. The petitioners also approached the Nagpur Improvement Trust as well as concerned Traffic Police having jurisdiction over the area for grant of no objection and both the Nagpur Improvement Trust vide its letter dated 13-2-2020 and Senior Police Inspector (Traffic Zone), Sakkardara, Nagpur city vide his letter dated 14-2-2020 respectfully gave no objection to hold the meeting, subject to various conditions mentioned in these two letters. According to the petitioner, as it was also the condition of no objection granted by the Traffic Police that permission for installing public address system be obtained from the concerned Police Station as well as to take abundant precaution, the petitioners filed an application before the Senior Police Inspector of Police Station Sakkardara and DCP (Special Branch), Nagpur for grant of permission to hold the workers meet at the said ground. The application was filed on 12-2-2020. It was, however, rejected by the concerned Senior Police Inspector, who is respondent No.4 here as per the communication dated 17-2-2020 on the ground that the workers meet, if held, may lead to disturbed law and order situation. This communication was followed by a notice dated 17-2-2020 to petitioner No.2 under Section 149 of the Code of Criminal Procedure directing him to not indulge in any sloganeering, road blockage, public demonstration etc. on the ground that the permission to hold workers meet had been rejected and that if the direction was violated in any manner, strict legal action would be taken against him and the organizers. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners are before this Court in this criminal writ petition.

4. A detailed reply to the petition has been filed by the respondent No.4 which appears to be also the reply of the remaining respondents. It has been stated in the reply that the petitioner No.2 has not approached this Court with clean hands as two criminal cases have been registered against him vide Crime No.675/2018 at Police Station Nandanvan, Nagpur and Crime No.355/2019 registered at Police Station Sadar, Nagpur city, Nagpur. It has been further stated that the Crime No.675/2018 has been registered against the petitioner No.2 and others for such offences as are punishable under Sections 143, 506 and 109 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Crime No.355/2019 has been registered against the petitioner No.2 and others for such offences as are punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. It is further stated in the reply that the founder of petitioner No.1 organization, Chandrashekhar Azad, has criminal antecedents as offences punishable under Sections 5