1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the respondent, denying permission to the petitioner to conduct a Blood Donation Camp to mark the birth anniversary of LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhaharan.

2. The petitioner is the District Secretary of a political party. This party wanted to celebrate the Birth anniversary of Mr.Prabhaharan, by conducting Public Meetings and by organizing Blood Donation Camp. The petitioner made an application on 12.11.2018, requesting the respondent to grant permission to conduct the Blood Donation Camp. The said application was rejected by the respondent by means of the impugned order dated 24.11.2018. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent Police has rejected the permission primarily on the ground that Section 30(2) of the Police Act [Police Act - hereinafter referred as "the Act"] is in force and the camp is conducted in the name of Prabhaharan who was the leader of LTTE, which is a banned organization. The learned counsel submitted that Section 30 of the Act is merely regulatory in nature, and the same cannot be used to make a blanket ban of all meetings and to conduct Blood Donation Camps. The learned counsel further submitted that merely supporting or propagating a banned organization is not an unlawful Act, and therefore, that cannot be stated as a ground for the rejection of the permission, by the respondent Police.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in order to substantiate his submissions relied upon the following judgments:

(i) Sou.Sundaramoorthi .Vs. The Commissioner of Police & Others reported in CDJ 2011 MHC 2238.

(ii) S.Rangarajan .Vs. P.Jagajivan Ram and Others reported in (1989) 2 SCC 574.

(iii) Arup Bhuyan .Vs. State of Assam reported in (2011) 3 SCC 377.

(iv) Pugazendhi Thangaraj .Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai City Police, Chennai & Another reported in CDJ 2011 MHC 1549.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent Police submitted that the respondent has given sufficient reasons for denying permission to conduct the Blood Donation Camp. The learned counsel would further submit that admittedly LTTE is a banned organization under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, [Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - hereinafter referred as "the Act']. Therefore permitting any person to conduct any Meeting or Camp in the name of a banned organization will amount to giving support to a terrorist organization. The learned counsel submitted that once an organization is banned and it is declared as unlawful, the consequences automatically follows under the Act. The learned counsel specifically relied upon Section 39 of the Act, which deals with offences relating to support given to a terrorist organization.

6. In reply to the submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that merely conducting a Blood Donation Camp during the birth anniversary of Prabhaharan, who was a LTTE leader, will not attract the provisions of Section 39 of the Act. The learned counsel submitted that the very provision itself states the various activities which will attract the commission of the offence and the Blood Donation Camp planned to be conducted by the petitioner by no stretch will amount to an offence under Section 39 of the Act.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner in order to substantiate his submission also brought to the notice of this Court, Section 21 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 [POTA] which is in pari materia with Section 39 of the Act. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Peoples Union for Civil Liberties & Another Vs. Union of India reported in CDJ 2004 SC 213, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with Section 21 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 [POTA].

8. T