Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 2648
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.
Popular Front of India, Represented by its State General Secretary and Ors. – Petitioner
Vs.
The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu - Respondent
W.P.No.9079 of 2015 & M.P.No.1 of 2015 R.A.Nos.66 & 67 of 2015
Decided On : 12.08.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For Petitioner: Mr.W.Peter Ramesh Kumar
For Respondents:Mr.A.L.Somayajee Advocate General assisted by Mr.R.Vijayakumar AGP
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the legal provisions related to the right to freedom of speech and expression, the right to assemble peacefully, and the procedure for initiating proceedings under Section 195(1)(b) read with Section 340 Cr.P.C.
Headnote:
Review - Permission for Procession - Section 307 IPC, Section 302 IPC, Section 41 of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888, Article 19(1)(a)&(b) of the Constitution of India, Section 195(1)(b) read with Section 340 Cr.P.C. - The court discussed the legal provisions related to the right to freedom of speech and expression, the right to assemble peacefully, and the restrictions provided under the Constitution of India. It also considered the procedure prescribed under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for initiating proceedings under Section 195(1)(b). The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of these legal provisions and the factual errors in the case.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants seek review of the order to quash the rejection of permission for a procession. The respondent organisation had filed Writ Petitions to challenge the rejection of permission for a procession. The court dismissed the Writ Petitions, and the respondent organisation sought fresh permission, which was also rejected. The Review Applications were filed to correct factual errors.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no misleading submission that led to the dismissal of the Writ Petitions. It also held that the Commission of any offence under Section 195(1)(b) does not arise for initiation of proceedings under the said provision.
Issues: The issues involved the rejection of permission for a procession, factual errors in the case, and the initiation of proceedings under Section 195(1)(b) read with Section 340 Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of legal provisions related to the right to freedom of speech and expression, the right to assemble peacefully, and the procedure for initiating proceedings under Section 195(1)(b) read with Section 340 Cr.P.C.
Final Decision: Review Application Nos.66 & 67 of 2015 were allowed, and W.P.No.9079 of 2015 was dismissed. No costs were awarded.
The applicants, who were respondents in W.P.No.4054 of 2015, seek for review of the order, dated 17.02.2015 in W.P.Nos.4049 and 4054 of 2015. The said Writ Petitions were filed by the respondent, an organisation called 'Popular Front of India' to quash the order passed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, (Law and Order), Dindigul District, dated 14.02.2015, and the order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, dated 15.02.2015, by which the respondent's request for grant of permission to conduct procession on 17.02.2015 was rejected.
2. Both the Writ Petitions were heard together and by common order dated 17.02.2015, the Writ Petitions were dismissed. The respondent organisation preferred W.A.Nos.305 & 306 of 2015, which were disposed of by the Hon'ble Division Bench by common order dated 27.02.2015, holding that the Writ Appeals have become infructuous, as the date proposed for procession is already over. It was made clear that if the respondent organisation makes a representation or application in future, the authorities will consider the same in accordance with law and on its own merit, after recording proper reason and pass orders. It was further observed that if there is certain extraneous material, which requires explanation from the organisation, they must be afforded an opportunity of hearing before taking a decision on the application made therein.
3. It appears that the respondent organisation submitted a representation on 04.03.2015, seeking for permission to conduct a procession on 14.03.2015 at 3.30 P.M. The said representation was taken into consideration and the Commissioner of Police by memo dated 07.03.2015, called upon the respondent organisation to furnish certain details/information on 09.03.2015. The respondent organisation submitted their reply on 09.03.2015. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent organisation on 11.03.2015, affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the respondent organisation on 12.03.2015 at 11.A.M., either to appear by themselves or through their counsel. Pursuant thereto, the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, by order dated 13.03.2015, rejected the request for grant of permission to a procession. It is not known as to whether the respondent organisation has questioned the proceedings, dated 13.03.2015, in the manner known to law.
4. Be that as it may, the Director General of Police, Chennai and the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, have filed the Review Applications to review the orders passed in W.P.Nos.4049 & 4054 of 2015, dated 17.02.2015. The learned Advocate General submitted that on instructions from the second review applicant referred only the criminal cases registered against the members of the respondent association for the offences under Section 307 IPC and not under Section 302 IPC. Further, it is stated that there were three cases registered in connection with the procession which was conducted during 2014 in Kenikarai Police Station for violation of condition imposed by the Police, which led to law and order issues. On these issues, the learned Advocate General seeks for review of the order by effecting correction of the factual error.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent organisation submitted that the Commissioner of Police, has furnished false and misleading information to this Court as Crl.O.P.No.5831 of 2014 was allowed and Crime No.67 of 2014 was quashed and Crime No.68 of 2014, is a false complaint and in this regard reference has been made to an affidavit filed in HCP(MD).No.180 of 2014. Further, it is submitted that no case of murder has been registered and based on the false and misleading information furnished to this Court, the Writ Petitions were dismissed by order dated 17.02.2015 and therefore, action has to be initiated against the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, and for which the respondent organisation has filed W.P.No.9079 of 2014, praying for a direction to the respondents 1 to 3
