Ratio-Order passed by Commissioner of Police not violative of section 41 (4).

K.A. Swami, C.J.

This appeal is preferred against the order dated 19th September, 1996 passed by the learned single Judge, Dismissing W.P. No.13673 of 1996. Hence, the petitioner therein has come up in the appeal.

2. In the writ petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing the impugned order dated 19. 1996 hearing number 943/T.P.2/96 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, in exercise of his power under Sec.41(l) of the Madras City Police Act, 1888 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

3. Learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition at the stage of preliminary hearing, on taking a view that the request for holding a public meeting on 22nd September, 1996 was also made by another group at the same time and same place, therefore the Commissioner of Police was justified in refusing the permission to held the meeting at Seerani Argangam on 29. 1996, in order to avoid conflict between the two groups and thereby resulting in disturbance of breach of peace. Regarding the route of the Vinayaga Procession the learned single Judge has taken a view that the Commissioner of Police was justified in regulating procession and modifying its route, in view of the fact that in the previous year, during such procession, there was a disturbance near Ice House Mosque causing damage to the public properties and disturbing peace. The learned single Judge is also of the view that for the purpose of achieving the object of immersing the Idols of Vinayaga in sea, the route by which the procession is taken, is not at all material, that the only requirement is that the procession should be allowed to reach the sea, where the idols are to be immersed, that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner by the impugned order. The learned single Judge is also of the view that in a matter like this, the principles of natural justice cannot be restricted to any particular strait jacket formula and the same have to be interpreted and adjusted according to the factual situation in each case, that the fundamental right of the petitioner has not been affected inasmuch as the procession has not been prohibited and it is only restricted to certain routes.

4. The petitioner claims to be a registered public charitable trust known as Vinayaga Chathurthi Madhiya Kuzhu represented by its Trustee Ram Gopalan a founder trustee of the trust. The primary object of the Trust, as claimed in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is to serve the public and help, organise and conduct the Vinayaga Chathurthi festival in a proper and orderly manner, that it is doing so for the last 13 years in the City of Madras, that Vinayaga Chathurthi is celebrated by Hindus, not only as a personal affair in their respective houses but also as a public festival where idols are kept in public roads under decorated pandals and several social, cultural and religious programmes are arranged to evoke religious fervour and bring oneness in the public without distinction of caste or creed, that Vinayaga Chathurthi festival was made as public religious festival by Bala Gangadhar Tilak, to unite the Indians against the British and help realise Swaraj, that it is relevant, even to day, to bring about a sense of cohesion amongst the various sections of people and help realise “Rama Rajya”, an ideal society envisioned by Mahatma Gandhi, that in the City of Madras and other parts of Tamil Nadu, various such public processions are organised to celebrate Vinayaga Chathurthi at the end of the festival, public religious processions along the main thoroughfare of Madras City, Vinayaga idols would be taken to immerse in the see with a public meeting marking the occasion. It is the further case of the petitioner that in the last 12 years, public procession has been allowed to go through the thoroughfare including the Triplicane High Road, Ice House, where the Big Mosque is situated, that in several parts of India, including Hyderabad and Ahamedabad, similar process