1. This Writ Petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records from the respondent pertaining to the impugned proceedings No.1605/TP2/2010-1 dated 28.07.2010, quash the same, and consequently direct the respondent to grant permission to the petitioner to convene demonstration on 30.07.2010 before the Memorial Hall, Chennai.

2. According to the petitioner, he is the District Secretary of Bahujan Samaj Party, North Chennai; the organisation has been functioning under the Indian Constitution all over India; the Party has 21 MPs. in Lok Sabha and 17 MPs. in Rajya Sabha; it is the third major political party in Indian continent; the Party is recognised by the Election Commission of India as a National Party under the Representation of the Peoples Act,1951; it has been continuously fighting for socially underprivileged and marginalized people and scheduled caste and scheduled tribes through constitutional means and within the purview of established law; apart from that, the party is democratically fighting against social evils, illegal activities of officials and general public, general clauses etc.; they have decided to convene a demonstration against the suspension of C.Uma Shankar, IAS Officer, on the reasons that he brought cremation sheds in the year 1995 when he was working as Additional Collector and Project Officer of District Rural Development Agency at Madurai and he has introduced e-Governance in the District Administration of Thiruvarur when he was working as District Collector between the year 1999 and 2001, which district was the first e-District in India.

3. The further case of the petitioner is that he gave a letter to the respondent on 24.07.2010 and sought for permission to convene the protest on 30.07.2010 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. in front of Memorial Hall, which is the scheduled place for staging demonstration by all, for which the respondent issued a show cause notice through the proceedings No.1605/T.P.2/2010, dated 26.07.2010 to him and directed him to appear before the respondent either directly or through his counsel; accordingly, his counsel met the respondent on 28.07.2010 at 06.00 p.m. and thereafter the respondent issued the impugned proceedings, denying permission. Hence, this Writ Petition.

4. Respondent has filed a counter, stating that the petitioner has sought permission to hold a demonstration on 28.07.2010 at about 11.a.m.; on receipt of the representation, a show cause notice was given to him on 26.07.2010 vide Proc.No.1605/TP2/2010, for which the petitioner gave a reply through his advocate vide notice dated 28.07.2010, explaining the reasons for conducting the demonstration; after perusing the explanation, the rejection order was passed on 28.07.2010 vide No.1605/TP2/2010-1; the said demonstration was against the action taken by the Government against one Uma Shankar, I.A.S., for furnishing false community certificate; the impugned rejection order was passed on the ground that the very same matter is to be adjudicated before the competent court and the petitioner has nothing to do with the agitation; condemning the administrative action against the individual will create unrest and it will affect the administrative functioning in initiating administrative actions; the petitioners grievance to ventilate by way of agitation is only an indirect threat to the Government officials who initiate disciplinary proceedings against the erring delinquent officer and that the petitioners claim that he is having a fundamental right to conduct agitation and demonstration as enumerated under the Constitution is subject to reasonable restriction and therefore the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Theforemost contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no authority can prohibit a democratic activity unless it is specifically prohibited under Article 19 (2) of the Constitution of India and such law imposes a r