Back
THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K. Chandru, J.
G. Sivarasa Boopathy
Versus
District Collector, Collectorate Campus, Tirunelvlei District and Others
W.P. (MD) No. 10812 of 2012 and W.P. (MD) No. 11395 of 2012 and M.P.(MD) Nos. 1, 1 and 2 of 2012
Decided On : 16 November 2012
Section 144(1) Cr.P.C. - Public Meeting - Section 144(1) Cr.P.C., Section 30(2) of the District Police Act - [Section 144(1) Cr.P.C., Section 30(2) of the District Police Act] - The court discussed the imposition of Section 144(1) Cr.P.C. and the denial of permission for holding a public meeting. It referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye v. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Monghyr and In re Ramlila Maidan Incident, and the Division Bench judgment in Pugalenthi and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, to justify the imposition of the prohibitory order and the denial of permission for the meeting. The court held that the orders were justified and in compliance with the legal provisions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought permission to hold a public meeting, which was denied due to the imposition of Section 144(1) Cr.P.C. and prohibitory orders in the area.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petitions, citing the recent Division Bench judgment and the justification for the imposition of Section 144(1) Cr.P.C. and the prohibitory orders.
Issues: Denial of permission for holding a public meeting, imposition of Section 144(1) Cr.P.C., and the legality of the prohibitory orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the recent Division Bench judgment and the legal provisions to uphold the denial of permission and the imposition of Section 144(1) Cr.P.C. and the prohibitory orders.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed, and no costs were awarded. Connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
1. These two writ petitions were filed by one and the same person. The petitioner claiming to be the Secretary of Human Rights Protection Centre, Tamil Nadu, Kanyakumari District as well as a practicing Advocate at Nagercoil and Tirunelveli Districts, has filed these two writ petitions.
2. The petitioner sent a letter to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Valliyur on 16.7.2012, seeking permission to hold a public meeting at Kudankukam East Bazaar, Pillaiyar Koil Grounds on 28.7.2012 to focus their demands relating to the cancellation of Kudankulam Indo American Nuclear Pact, giving up the commission of Kudankulam Atomic Power Centre, privatisation of electricity and withdrawal of false cases lodged against Kudankulam people. The Inspector of Police, Kudankulam Police Station upon receipt of the letter had passed an order dated 25.7.2012 stating that an order under Section 30(2) of the District Police Act has been promulgated in the Sub Divisional Limits of Valliyur. The District Collector-cum-Executive Magistrate, Tirunelveli had also issued a prohibitory order within 7 Kms. range of Kudankulam Power plant under Section 144(1) Cr.P.C., which is in force till 9.8.2012. Therefore, the petitioner if allowed to conduct any meeting, there is likelihood of infringement of law and order problem. Hence their request for public meeting was cancelled.
3. When the writ petition came up on 2.8.2012, this Court directed the learned Special Government Pleader to get instructions. In the meanwhile, having realized that the promulgation of Section 144(1) was in force in that area, the petitioner filed a second writ petition in W.P. (MD) No. 11395 of 2012 challenging the order dated 11.8.2012 issued by the District Magistrate under Section 144(1) Cr.P.C. It was stated that such an order has been in force by the previous orders dated 19.3.2012, 27.3.2012, 11.4.2012, 26.4.2012, 9.5.2012, 6.6.2012 and 10.7.2012. After referring to the previous orders passed by him for the very same purpose, the District Collector had opined that on review of the law and order problem in Radhapuram Taluk, the Kudankulam area is likely to be the venue of agitators and other unlawful organizations and protesters against the Nuclear Power Plant and other allied groups and there is disruption to public peace and creating law and order problem and cases have been registered against them and they have also intended to commit unlawful acts as per the report given by the Superintendent of Police, Tirenelveli and the Sub Collector, Cheranmadevi. Therefore, in order to prevent such actions which are in breach of public peace and also to protect the workers who are working in the power plant and in the interest of security of the people as well as the security of the power plant and also to prevent the public properties being damaged as well as safety to the public and their properties and to give protection to the public for leading normal life, in modification of the orders made earlier, with effect from 11.8.2012 to 10.9.2012 within the radius of 7 Kms. of the power plant, Section 144(1) Cr.P.C was promulgated. This is to prevent the persons who are having contrary view on the establishment of the power plant and those who are helping the struggling committee and instigating them including political parties, organizations and movements and other persons. When this writ petitions came up on 22.8.2012, the learned Special Government Pleader took notice. A counter affidavit in W.P. (MD) No. 10812 of 2012 sworn to by the Inspector of Police, Kudankulam Police station, dated 4.9.2012 was filed. Another counter affidavit in W.P. (MD) No. 11395 of 2012 sworn to by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vallioor dated 4.9.2012 was filed. The District Collector, Tirunelveli has also filed an independent counter affidavit dated 31.8.2012 in W.P. (MD) No. 11395 of 2012 together with supporting documents in the form of typed set.
4. Heard the arguments of Mr. T. Lajapathi Roy and M
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
