IMPORTANT POINT
The State's refusal to permit a peaceful assembly must align with Article 19(3) of the Constitution; mere law and order concerns are insufficient grounds for restriction.

JUDGMENT :

Heard, the learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioner by filing this writ petition initially had prayed for a direction upon the respondent-authorities to take appropriate action pursuant to their application, seeking consent and permission, for organizing a “Hanumant Katha” from 10.02.2024 to 15.02.2024 in Medininagar, District- Palamau.

3. It is their case that as the respondents had not taken any steps and were sitting tight over the application they were forced to approach this Court for the necessary direction as originally prayed for.

4. During the pendency of the writ petition a supplementary counter affidavit was filed. In the said counter affidavit, the respondents-State has produced an order being Memo No.24 dated 10.01.2024, by which the permission sought for by the petitioner for organizing that “Hanumant Katha”, was rejected. The petitioner thus challenged the said order by filing an amendment application. The amendment application was allowed and amended writ petition is also filed.

5. The State has also file a second supplementary counter affidavit. Thus this matter has been listed today for final disposal of the writ application.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no substantive ground has been assigned while passing the impugned order, refusing to grant permission to the petitioner to organize the said congregation. It is his contention that the ground mentioned therein are non-est in the eyes of law which does not fall within the purview of Article 19(3) of the Constitution of India. It is his submission that restriction, as envisaged by Article 19(3) of the Constitution of India, can only be imposed to restrict the right, which has been conferred by the Constitution under Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India. The impugned order does not fall in that category. He submits that so far as the infrastructure is concerned, the petitioner organization is ready to provide necessary and adequate infrastructure at the venue. He states that even if the State is expecting two lakhs persons per day to attend the congregation, whereas sitting arrangements of sixty thousands persons has been made, the said capacity can be increased, as per the place where the congregation is to be conducted in an area having 250 acres of space. He submits that necessary volunteer will be placed and parking space will be specified and they will ensure installation of CCTV cameras and other basic facilities /amenities which the person attending the congregation may need.

7. The Additional Advocate General, Mr. Sachin Kumar submits that a similar type of congregation was held at Patna and there was a chaotic situation there, thus, the State apprehends that there will be a similar law and order problem, if this congregation is allowed to be held. He submits that they are estimating 3 - 4 lakhs people visiting the congregation per day but the sitting arrangement has been made only for sixty thousand persons. He further submits that there is necessity to install temporary CCTV cameras and provide volunteers, considering the huge number of devotees, who will be attending the congregation. There is also a necessity of proper parking space and other facilities like mobile-toilets etc. which also needs to be provided. Since there is nothing in the plan submitted by the petitioner before the respondents, their application seeking permission was rejected.

8. The petitioner herein, is organizing a congregation for “Hanumant Katha”. They want to organize the same in Medininagar, Palamau. The said congregation would be from 10.02.2024 to 15.02.2024, which will be addressed by Shri Dhirendra Krishna Shastri (Bageshwar Dham Sarkar). The petitioner approached the respondents for grant of permission, which was rejected by the impugned order.

9. Since the order of refusal has been passed by the State authority, I am testing the validity of the order in the touch stone of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also