Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 2083
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. RAMANATHAN
P. Rathinam
Versus
The Superintendent of Police & Others
W.P.(MD)No.5765 of 2009 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009
Decided on: 04-07-2009
The central legal point established in the judgment is the need to balance the right to conduct a function with the preservation of public peace and safety, as outlined in the relevant provisions of the Police Act.
Headnote:
Police Act - Denial of Permission - Section 30, Section 41 - The court considered the denial of permission to open a library and the meeting in connection with that, and discussed the provisions of Section 30 and Section 41 of the Police Act. The court highlighted the power of the police to prohibit assemblies for the preservation of public peace and safety, and the need for permission to be granted unless there is apprehension of disturbance to public peace or safety.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a practicing advocate, challenged the order of the 2nd respondent denying permission to open a library in a village, citing the purpose of creating awareness among Dalit people. The court noted the petitioner's unsatisfactory conduct in approaching the respondents at the eleventh hour.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petitioner's conduct unsatisfactory but considered the purpose of the function and the prevailing situation in the area. It permitted the function subject to specific conditions, emphasizing the need to prevent communal disharmony and maintain law and order.
Issues: The issues revolved around the denial of permission under the Police Act, the petitioner's conduct, and the potential impact on public peace and safety.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the need to balance the petitioner's purpose with the preservation of public peace and safety, as outlined in the relevant provisions of the Police Act.
Final Decision: The court permitted the function with specific conditions to prevent communal disharmony and maintain law and order, while emphasizing the need for restraint and cooperation with the police.
Heard Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Pala Ramasamy, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The 2nd respondent was present in Court and after getting the file from him, the learned Special Government Pleader has submitted his arguments.
2. The petitioner is a practising Advocate and has filed the above writ petition challenging the order of the 2nd respondent made in Na.Ka.No.11/Genl./SDO.MLR/09 dated 03.07.2009 stating that the impugned order was served on him at 12.15 P.M. on 04.07.2009. Thereafter, he sought for permission from the Honourable Chief Justice of this Court and as per the direction of the Honourable Chief Justice, special sitting was ordered today at 8.00 P.M. and the matter was heard.
3. The case of the petitioner is that on 24.06.2009 he presented a petition to the 2nd respondent seeking permission to open a library in the name of Dr.Ambedkar Makkal Noolagam from 10.00 A.M. to 4.30 P.M. on 05.07.2009. It was further stated that he also made a written representation containing the same allegations and averments made in the representation dated 24.06.2009 to the 1st and 4th respondents on 03.07.2009 and on 04.07.2009 at 12.15 P.M. the order of the 2nd respondent denying the permission to have the function on 05.07.2009 was served on him and immediately, he approached this Honourable Court.
4. Mr.T.Lajapathy Roy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the purpose of opening the library in the village Chennakarampatti, Melur Taluk in Madurai District is to create awareness among the Dalit people and to enlighten them about their rights and by giving them education, they would become a good citizens of this country and only with those objects, the old students of Madurai Law College viz., who studied between the year 1983 to 1988 collected funds and made arrangements to open a library in the Chennakarampatti village.
5. He further submitted that publicity about the function was already given 15 days earlier to the date of function and they have already made wall writings all over Madurai District in more than 30 places informing the public about the function to be held on 05.07.2009.
.6. Mr.T.Lajapathy Roy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would further submit that the participants in the function are highly educated people and respected citizens of this country and therefore, they would not indulge in any illegal activities so as to create breach of the peace and law and order problem and therefore, the apprehension of the 2nd respondent that by allowing the function to happen will create law and order problem is only a figment of imagination and there is no basis for his apprehension.
7. He further challenged the reason for denying the permission on the ground that tension between the Dalits and caste Hindus in that particular village had not ceased and by permitting the opening of such library, the books kept in that library would create disharmony, anger and hatred between the caste Hindus and Dalits and submitted that there is no basis for that.
8. He further developed his argument by stating that on 30.06.2009, huge number of Dalit people assembled in Melavazhavu village, which according to him 2 Kms to Chennakarampatti, and according to the learned Special Government Pleader, Mr.Pala Ramasamy, Melavazhavu village is only 500 Mtrs from Chennakarampatti village and no untoward incidents happened on that date, when more than 5000 people assembled to pay homage in Melavazhavu village.
9. The reason stated in para 2 of the impugned order is also assailed by Mr.T.Lajapathy Roy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on the ground that the incident referred to in para 2 took place in the year 1997 and for the past 12 years, there is no law and order problem in that village and therefore, the apprehension of the 2nd respondent that by permitting a meeting on the occasion of the opening of l
