The police have the duty to regulate public meetings and can cancel permission for valid reasons. Compensation can only be claimed if there is evidence of malice or conscious abuse of power by the authorities.

1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners fundamental rights and direct to permit the petitioner to conduct public meeting on 12. 2010 at Muthurangan Salai, T.Nagar, Chennai-600017 and further direct to pay to the petitioner the actual damages of Rs.1,00,000/- and award exemplary cost.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the permission given to conduct public meetings on 1. 2010 regarding the assassination of Sri.Rajiv Gandhi and wrongful blame cast on the Tamils and expose the real culprit was cancelled by the second respondent at 12.00 noon on the same day. On 212. 2009, the petitioner applied for such permission setting out the venue, the list of speakers and permission was granted on 312. 2009. It is alleged in the affidavit that on earlier occasions, the petitioner and similarly placed persons conducted similar meetings. Due to the cancellation order passed by the second respondent at the last moment, petitioner incurred an expense of Rs.1.00 lakh as speakers have arrived from Bangalore, Trichy, Cuddalore, Ramanathapuram, Villupuram, etc., and for making arrangement for the said meeting. Hence a compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh towards loss sustained by the petitioner in making arrangement for the meeting is prayed for.

3. The writ petition was filed on 1. 2010. On 21. 2010 an interim order was passed by this Court by recording the statement made by the Additional Government Pleader stating that for the meeting to be held on 12. 2010, orders would be passed on 21. 2010 itself and the same will be served on the petitioner. Thereafter the case was adjourned to 2. 2010. However, permission was not granted to conduct the meeting on 12. 2010. Thereafter, the petitioner sought for permission to conduct a meeting on 23. 2010 from 6.00 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. and by order dated 3. 2010, this Court directed the second respondent to consider the request seeking permission to conduct meeting on 23. 2010 based on the application submitted on 13. 2010. On 13. 2010, the second respondent granted permission to conduct meeting with 14 conditions, pursuant to which the meeting was conducted by the petitioner on 23. 2010 and therefore the first limb of the prayer seeking permission to conduct public meeting at Muthurangam Salai, T.Nagar, Chennai-600017, no longer survives. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the second limb of the prayer seeking compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh towards loss and damages for the last minute cancellation of meeting proposed to be held on 1. 2010 has to be decided in this writ petition and proper compensation has to be ordered by this Court.

4. The respondents have filed counter affidavit in this writ petition and justified the cancellation order passed on 1. 2010 by stating that on 312. 2009 permission was granted to conduct public meeting regarding the assassination of Sri.Rajiv Gandhi and wrongful blame cast on Tamils and to expose the real culprits. Thereafter the Police received information against the conduct of meeting from Intelligence Sources that there is every likelihood of law and order problem and imminent possibility of unrest and disturbance of public order and tranquility, as the topic itself is leading to controversy from a section of the people in the larger interest of the public safety and public order. Therefore the permission granted on 312. 2009 was cancelled to prevent law and order problem and an order was passed under section 41 of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888. According to the respondents, the said cancellation order was passed under Section 41(3) of the Act and no motive to stop the meeting is available, except on public interest and public safety. There is no illegality in the order and no compensation can be claimed from the respondents for the cancelled meeting.

5. Petitioner has filed a reply affidavit for the said counter affidavit by stating that the cancellation ord