The fundamental right to conduct a peaceful function is subject to reasonable restrictions, and authorities should not refuse to receive representations from individuals seeking permission for such functions.

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents 3 to 5 to grant him permission to provide welfare assistance to the Children and Public on 24.02.2018 in the event of celebration of 70th Birth Anniversary of the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu Selvi Dr. J.Jayalalitha and also to fix her banners and loud speakers by considering his representation dated 24.01.2018.

2. Heard Mr.R.Nalliyappan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.D.Raja, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent police has not granted permission to provide Welfare Assistance to the Children and Public on 24.02.2018 (Saturday) in the event of celebration of birth anniversary of the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, Dr.J.Jayalalitha. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, when the petitioner had submitted the representation to the respondents on 24.01.2018 seeking permission for the above, the respondent police refused to receive the same and thereafter, he sent the representation on the same day by post to the fifth respondent herein which was also returned with a postal endorsement “refused”. It is on this back ground, the present petition has been filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in connection with A.I.A.D.M.K political party, the respondents have earlier granted permission to conduct similar meeting and as such, they are not justified in refusing permission for the petitioner, who is also claimed to be a faction of the same political party.

5. The learned Additional Government Pleader on the other hand submitted that the petitioner herein had not got permission from the appropriate authorities and that if they were permitted to erect flex banners in 110 places, it would cause hindrance to public, create traffic and spoil business and day-to-day affairs also in the locality. The learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that the petitioner herein has been expelled from A.I.A.D.M.K political party and he is not competent to claim permission for the said function on behalf of the party.

6. I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsels appearing for the parties.

7. It is needless to point out that conduct of peaceful meeting or a public function is a fundamental right subject to reasonable restrictions. So long as the petitioner seeks permission for conduct of peaceful meeting and public function, the police may not be justified in refusing to receive the petitioner's representation. However, the police can refuse to grant permission after receiving the same, if such conduct of meeting may cause inconvenience to the general public. Since it is the fundamental right of the petitioner to conduct such a peaceful function, if at all the respondents are of the view that proposed function may cause traffic congestion, it was always open to them to permit the petitioner to conduct the function by imposing reasonable conditions.

8. This Court is construed to remark the conduct of the fifth respondent who had refused to receive the petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also produced the original returned cover sent by him through RPAD which contains a postal endorsement "refused". It is a common knowledge that representations and complaints are often being sent to the Government officials, as well as to the police personnels, through post. The fifth respondent being an Inspector of Police will not be justified, at ant point of time, in refusing to receive the said representations sent through posts. Such conduct would amount to dereliction of the ordinary duties of their office. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein that the fifth respondent was aware of the registered post content of the petitioner's application and therefore he had refused. I do not want to go into the veracity of such a stat