The fundamental right to protest under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India cannot be prohibited unless restricted by law, and reasonable restrictions can be imposed to preserve law and order.

The Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant permission to the petitioner to arrange for the protest meeting against the establishment of Neduvasal Hydro-Carbon extraction project at Chinnappa Park, Pudukkottai Town on 15.07.2017 at about 02.00 p.m.

2. The petitioner states that he has organised a protest meeting at Chinnappa Park, Pudukkottai Town on 15.07.2017 at 02.00 p.m. The agitation is to condemn the policy of Central Government to implement the Hydro Carbon Project. Leave alone the details contained in the affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition, it is seen that the petitioner and like minded persons are conducting protest meetings in various places objecting to the Hydro Carbon Project at Neduvasal from February, 2017. In fact, the petitioner also admits that the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu State has made an announcement in the floor of the House objecting to the proposed project and promised that the State will never allow the Hydro Carbon Project which is against the interest of the agriculturists and farmers. The petitioner himself relied upon the assurance given by the District Collector vide his proceedings dated 15.05.2017. Despite all these, the Central Government has not stopped the project and in paragraph 4 of the affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition, the steps that are taken by the Central Government in proceeding towards calling for tender and awarding of contract to several companies including foreign company, are referred to and it is stated that the agitation throughout the State in the recent past has not yielded any result. The petitioner has made a representation on 04.07.2017 seeking permission and the same was not considered. Hence, the above Writ Petition is filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the agitation and the protest meeting proposed to be held on 15.07.2017 is only to criticise the policy of the Central Government and that therefore, it is the fundamental right of a citizen of this country under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India.

4. The learned Additional Advocate General appeared for the respondents in this case submitted that he has instructions to seriously oppose the agitation and the protest meeting for various reasons. The learned Additional Advocate General referred to the announcement of the Hon'ble Chief Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu in the floor of the House about his solemn undertaking not to permit the Hydro Carbon Project. Further, the press statement of the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu relied upon by the petitioner is also referred to by the learned Additional Advocate General to point out that the petitioner has no cause of action for initiating or proceeding with any agitation. It is the specific contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that the agitation is only to prevent the project proposed by the Central Government. When the Hon'ble Chief Minister of the State has given a solemn undertaking and this has been widely published in all news papers and other media throughout the State, the real purpose behind organizing such protest meeting is with ulterior motive and that therefore, the respondents cannot permit such meeting in the interest of maintenance of public order and tranquillity.

5. The learned Additional Advocate General then pointed out the fact that the petitioner is not the signatory to the representation that was given on 04.07.2017. Pointing out that the name of Rajendran, the petitioner, was inserted in the representation found in the typed set filed before this Court whereas the original representation that was given is not the one produced before Court. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the authenticity of the petitioner's representation cannot be accepted. As a matter of caution, a person who has committed an irregularity of this nature cannot be shown any indulgence by this Court while exer