RamachandranNair, J.

1. The short question arising in these writ petitions filed in public interest is whether the judgment of this court confirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court prohibiting holding of meetings on public roads and road margins as violative of fundamental rights of the citizens guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India can be got over through State legislation and when the State has made such a legislative invasion on the fundamental rights of the citizens of the country, shouldn't this court declare such law as unconstitutional and stillborn under Article 13(2) of the Constitution of India. The background of the impugned legislation and the developments that led to this second round of litigation to protect fundamental rights of the citizens of the State are stated below in brief.

2. Public meetings were held frequently by erecting panthal and by spreading chairs on tarred road in the junction in front of the Aluva Railway Station which is just opposite to the State Road Transport Bus Station causing road block for long time and preventing public access even to the Railway Station. A local resident filed a public interest litigation which was allowed by this court by declaring that holding of public meeting on public road and road margin as illegal and violative of the fundamental rights of the citizens and the said judgment rendered in KHALID MUNDAPPILLY Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER & OTHERS is reported in 2010(3) KLT 1. In fact the instruction from the Inspector of Police stating that the holding of public meeting on public road at Aluva is undesirable as it leads to long time traffic block and even prevents people's entry to the Railway Station and the Police cannot manage the situation was not brought to the notice of this court. Strangely, inspite of this stand of the Police and the declaration of the illegality in permitting meetings on public road and road margins in violation of the fundamental rights of the traveling public, the State filed a Review Petition wherein several public interest litigants also got impleaded as additional respondents and opposed the Review Petition filed by the State and prayed for sustaining the law declared by this court in the judgment in the abovesaid Writ Petition. This court vide judgment in CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT & OTHERS Vs. KHALID MUNDAPPILLY & OTHERS reported in 2010(3) KLT 757 dismissed the Review Petition upholding the law declared in the judgment, simultaneously prohibiting the Police, P.W.D. and State authorities from granting any permission to hold public meetings on public roads and road margins. These two judgments of this court were taken up by the State in S.L.P.(C) No.35169/2010, which was dismissed by the Honourable Supreme Court by order dated 6.1.2011. Even though the Honourable Supreme Court dismissed the S.L.P. by a single sentence order, Media reported that the matter was seriously contested by the State by engaging distinguished lawyers who even tried to convince the Supreme Court that the notoriously narrow Kerala roads admit space for holding public meetings. However, the Bench consisting of Honourable Mr. Justice H.L.Dattu who was Chief Justice of Kerala for over one and a half years being very familiar with the road conditions and the traffic blocks in Kerala, could not be convinced is the report of the Media. In any case fact remains that the State could not even get admission for their Special Leave Petition filed against the judgment, which was summarily rejected by the Supreme Court. The position that emerges after the dismissal of the S.L.P. by the Supreme Court is that the declaration made by this court in the judgment holding that all public meetings on public roads and road margins as illegal and violative of the fundamental rights of the traveling public conferred under Article 19(1)(d) stands endorsed by the order of the Honourable Supreme Court. In fact, ever since the first judgment which was render