The main legal point established in the judgment is the right to lodge protest as enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and the limitations on curtailment of such demonstrations by the respondents.

1. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the first respondent is justified in refusing to give permission to the petitioner to conduct protest demonstration against the closure of Beef stall run by the Aruntathiyinar during weekly market at Kavundappadi?

2. The petitioner claims to be the Convener of the joint committee for Caste Abolition. He had applied for the conduct of protest demonstration on 09.05.2012 at 03.00 p.m. vide his requisition letter dated 4.5.2012 to the second respondent. They had also printed handbills in furtherance of their decision holding protest demonstration. In their handbill published, they had stated that in the weekly market, the Arunthathiyinars of the village were conducting Beef stall for over 40 years. The panchayat had cancelled permission to conduct the beef stall. To condemn the decision of the panchayat, a massive protest demonstration was organized on 09.05.2012 near Four Road junction in Kavundappadi. The first respondent by the impugned order dated 07.05.2012 had stated that taking into account the law and order situation and in view of the promulgation of section 30(2) of the Police Act, permission was refused. Hence the writ petition was filed challenging the same.

3. When the writ petition came up on 16.5.2012, this court directed the learned Additional Government pleader to take notice and to get necessary instructions from the respondents. Accordingly, the learned Additional Government Pleader produced a written instruction from the first respondent stating that permission to conduct protest demonstration at four road junction against the action of the panchayat cannot be granted. It was stated that certain local persons were selling beef in the open places at the market area at Kavandappadi twice in a week. As it was in the open place and was not healthy for human consumption, the panchayat had issued an order prohibiting the sale of beef at the open place in terms of Section 157 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994. The panchayat had also allotted a new area adjacent to the existing area. The new area is covered with compound wall and clean. The beef sellers have also installed the beef stall at the new place allotted by the panchayat. But the three persons belonging to the village did not accept the decision ad they have already filed a writ petition before this court being W.P.No.4051 of 2012 against the show cause notice dated 6.2.2012. That writ petitin was disposed of with a direction to the panchayat to consider the replies sent by the petitioners and till such time, the panchayat was directed not to interfere with their business.

4. Thereafter, curiously the first respondent in the written instruction had stated as follows :

"In the wall posters, the printed matters were in the nature of developing the communal disharmony between the different communities of Hindu Religion. Also, names of the President and others had been mentioned in the wall poster and they had been shown as communally fanatics, If the petitioner Veerakumar had been permitted to conduct agitation at Kavandapadi 4 road junction, it would have been created communal tension.

In the interest of justice, maintaining Law and Order and safe guarding the communal harmony between the different communities and to avert untoward incident I had not granted permission to conduct agitations (Dharna) as requested by the petitioner Veerakumar."

5. A copy of the panchayat resolution dated 26.3.2012 banning the conduct of beef stall in the weekly market under Section 157 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, was also produced. It was stated that if the aggrieved person applies for a shop in the newly allotted place, it will be considered.

6. However, the question is not whether the panchayat decision is legally valid or not. The question is related to the petitioner's right to demonstrate even assuming that the decision of the panchayat was legally valid or not. Therefore what is involved is t