The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the Commissioner to follow due process and provide an opportunity for the organizer to be heard before rejecting a procession request, as mandated by Section 41(2) of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888.

1. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. The petitioner, who claims to be a member of the State Executive Committee of Hindu Munnani Organization, Coimbatore, would state in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition that the Hindu Munnani Organization organizes its State conference once in every five years and so far, they have conducted the State conferences in various places in Tamil Nadu like Dindigul, Karur, Madurai, Rameswaram and Coimbatore and similar conference and procession was also organised in Coimbatore city in the year 1991. The petitioner would further state that in this year, it has decided to organize its 7th conference on 07.06.2015 in Coimbatore city and planned to conduct the conference in Kodisiya Ground at around 4.00 p.m., on that day and prior to the commencement of conference, they have planned to organize a procession on 07.06.2015 at 3.00 pm.

3. According to the petitioner, for the purpose of conducting procession on 07.06.2015, various placards with slogans have been made and so also, chariots.

4. The petitioner would further state that for the purpose of getting permission to conduct a procession and holding a conference, they have submitted an application on 02.05.2015 to the third respondent and they also applied for permission to use loudspeakers. The petitioner received a memo in C.No.03/B-6 L&O PS/Memo/2015 dated 03.06.2015 from the third respondent asking for the following particulars:-

“1. In the event of any law and order problem in the place where the conference is going to be held, who is responsible for the same?

2. On account of vehicles coming to the Coimbatore city in connection with the conference, if there is any law and order problem in these routes, who will be responsible for the same?

3. If there is any law and order problem in connection with erection of Pandals and banners for the conference, who will be held responsible?

4. Who will be held responsible for the law and order problem caused, by those who are to come to that place, which may arise on account of your arrangements, notwithstanding the rejection of permission for conduct of procession by the Police Department?”

5. The petitioner, who is the resident of Coimbatore City and District President of Hindu Munnani, Coimbatore City, was called upon to submit his remarks.

6. The grievance expressed by the petitioner is that on the very same day of the said memo dated 03.06.2015, the impugned order came to be passed by the second respondent rejecting his request, for conducting the procession, however, granting permission to conduct conference in a private place at 6.00 pm on 07.06.2015.

7. Mr.G.Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the organization has espoused the cause of the public and also done yeoman services to various poor and needy and when it received the news about the Nepal earthquake, the Organization went there and undertook all speedy relief measures and also constructed houses to the houseless people in Sri Lanka and the said Organization also helped the people of our State to recover from Tsunami and therefore, the reasons stated in the impugned order for rejecting the request of the petitioner for conducting procession, on the face of it, is un-sustainable.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the following judgements:-

“1. A.I.R 1935 Allahabad 657 (Qasim Raza v. Emperor);

2. (Commissioner of Police v. Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta);

3. 2005 (3) CTC 260 (Adhirai M.M.Ibrahim v. The Commissioner of Police);

4. Writ Appeal Nos.842 and 843 of 2013 dated 13.04.2013 (The Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu v. Era.Selvam);

5. (M.V.Vijayaraghavan State Youth Wing Convenor V. The Superintendent of Police);

6. (M.Durairaj v. The Superintendent of Police) and

7. (Dr.Ambedkar Mandran-Thiruchuli v. The Superintendent of Police).”

9. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the