The main legal point established in the judgment is that the refusal of permission to hold a public meeting was upheld based on the need to preserve public order and the strain on police manpower due to multiple events in the city.

JUDGMENT

Sunil B. Shukre,J. - Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner No.1 is a social organization espousing the cause of socially and economically backward classes of citizens of India. The petitioner No.2 is a member of petitioner No.1.

3. The petitioner No.1 decided to hold a giant rally described in Hindi as 'Vishal Maharally' of persons belonging to such categories as Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes and religion converts.Accordingly, an application was made by the petitioners on 13/9/2022 to Respondent No.3. Thereafter some queries were raised by Respondent No.3 which were answered by the petitioners. Ultimately, by the order passed on 28/9/2022 the permission was refused by Respondent No.3. It is this order dtd. 28/9/2022 which has been impugned in the present petition.

4. This matter was heard yesterday and finding that apart from the rally, the petitioners also want to hold a meeting at Bezanbag ground and considering the fact that permission to take out a rally only was refused, this Court suggested that Respondent No.3 could still consider granting of permission to hold only a public meeting without taking out any rally by the petitioners, whereupon Shri Manohar, learned Senior Advocate for the Respondents informed this Court that no specific application was made by the petitioners seeking permission to only hold a meeting and he further informed, on instructions, that if a fresh application in a specific manner was made in that regard, it would be considered by Respondent No.2 on its own merits. The petitioners accepted the suggestion and, therefore, hearing was adjourned and the matter was posted for final hearing today. Today's development is that after a fresh application was made in a specific manner by the petitioners seeking permission to hold meeting at Bezanbag ground, the application was rejected by Respondent No.4 by the order passed on 4/10/2022. This order has been placed on record along with pursis bearing Stamp No.7/2022 by the Respondents. This order, of course, has not been specifically challenged by making any amendment to the petition but, the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners are enough for us to hold that the latest order dtd. 4/10/2022 is now under challenge in this petition. Accordingly, we have extensively heard the rival submissions of the parties.

5. Mr. Mirza, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that to hold a public meeting in a peaceful manner and without arms is a fundamental right guaranteed to every citizen of India under Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India and the right cannot be restricted or curtailed except on the grounds stated in Article 19(3) of the Constitution. He points out that these grounds are the "sovereignty and integrity of India" and "public order". He submits that the impugned order refusing to hold a public meeting at a private ground is arbitrary as it does not satisfy the test of reasonableness and also the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ramlila Maidan Incident, In Re, (2012) 5 SCC 1.

6. Mr. Mirza, learned counsel submits that in Ramlila Maidan Incident (supra) which has been followed extensively by this court in Bhim Army (Bharat Ekta Mission, Nagpur) and Anr. V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Ors., 2020 ALL MR (Cri) 2265, it is held that the authority imposing the restrictions must satisfy the triad of tests laid down in Ramlila Maidan Incident (supra). According to Mr. Mirza learned counsel for the petitioners none of these tests is satisfied by the impugned order passed in this case.

7. Mr. Mirza, learned counsel further submits that there is no legislation or rule having force of law which enables the Commissioner of Police to refuse permission to hold a public meeting on any ground much less the ground of maintenance of law and order at the place where the public meeting is proposed to be held.