The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of maintaining peace and law and order during public gatherings and rallies, especially in the context of potential incitement of violence.

ORDER

1. In this public interest petition, at the instance of a member of the ruling political party at the Centre, an issue has been raised about the statement by the respondent No.12 Chief Minister of West Bengal on 28th June, 2022 while addressing a public gathering in Asansol and declaring 21st June, 2022 as a day of Jihad against the petitioner's political party. It is also disclosed that on 21st of July, 2022, every year the ruling party in the State organizes a rally calling the Martyrs Day (Shahid Divas). It is alleged that such a statement has been made and political workers of the respondent No. 12 party have been incited to display violence against the members of petitioner's political party and that there is great apprehension of violence as an attempt has been made to instigate a particular community to commit violence against the supporters of the petitioner's political party. The earlier instance of post-poll violence after the Assembly election on 2nd of May, 2021 has been highlighted and Full Bench judgment of this Court dated 19th of August, 2021 in WPA(P) 142 of 2021 in the case of Susmita Saha Dutta vs. The Union of India and Ors. and other connected petitions has been relied upon in support of the plea of apprehension of violence on 21st of July, 2022. A plea has also been raised that though the complaint was made by the petitioner but no action has been taken.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised a submission that on account of the provocative speech of the respondent No.12, there is apprehension of violence, therefore, similar protective order be passed as was passed by this Court on 15th of June, 2022 in WPA(P) 258 of 2022 in the case of Niladri Saha vs. The State of West Bengal and Others. He has also referred to various documents enclosed with the petition in support of his plea.

3. Learned Advocate General has raised a preliminary objection that as required by Rule 26 of the Rules of High Court at Calcutta Relating to Applications Under Article 226 of the Constitution (for short, 'the Rules'), no advance notice has been served upon the State and the service of notice to the Advocate General cannot be treated to be proper service in view of the Division Bench judgment in matter of State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Arjun Kumar Izaddar & Ors. reported in (2005) 3 CHN 603 and Single Bench judgment in the matter of Sanjit Jana vs. State of West Bengal and Others reported in 2012 SCC OnLine Cal 2240. He has submitted that no advance notice of 48 hours has been served, therefore, the petition should be dismissed. He has also raised an objection that there is no pleading of breach of any fundamental right in the writ petition and that the speech of one political party against another political party is not actionable and that in the writ petition it has been projected as if ruling party in the State is for one particular community and the petitioner's party is for another community which is not correct and it is only a phrase which was used in the political speech and proper arrangements for traffic movement and police have been made. Questioning the maintainability of the petition, he has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Tehseen Poonawalla vs. Union of India and Another reported in (2018) 6 SCC 72 and in the matter of Rajiv Ranjan Singh 'Lalan' (VIII) and Another vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2006) 6 SCC 613. He has also submitted that another writ petition being WPA(P) 296 of 2022 in the case of Nazia Elahi Khan vs. The State of West Bengal and Others was filed which was adjourned because affidavit was not filed.

4. Leared Counsel for the respondent No.12 has also questioned the maintainability of the petition by submitting that writ petition for political cuase cannot be maintained and that no proper notice to respondent No. 12 was served and there is no prayer for dispensation for service of notice in the petition. In support of this,