IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 08.04.2022

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

W.P.No.8284 of 2022

V.Paramasivam

... Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Superintendent of Police,

The Office of Superintendent of Police,

Chengalpattu District.

2. The Assistant Superintendent of Police,

The Office of Superintendent of Police,

Chengalpattu District.

3. The Inspector of Police,

D2, Taluk Police Station,

Chengalpattu District.

4. The Inspector of Police,

D-1, Town Police Station,

Chengalpattu District.

... Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of

India, pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, direct the 1st

respondent to give permission to the petitioner organization to

organize a demonstration and public meeting at Ratinaam Kinaru

in Chengalpattu District on 09/04/2022 or any other convenient

day including permission to use mike, publish, affix and

distribute posters for the said meeting.

For Petitioner : M/s.P.Uma

For Respondents: Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan

Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

This petition has been filed seeking to direct the first

respondent to give permission to the petitioner/organization to

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

organize a demonstration and public meeting at Ratinaam Kinaru

in Chengalpattu District on 09/04/2022 or any other convenient

day including permission to use mic, publish, affix and

distribute posters for the said meeting.

2. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, it was

submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the

representation of the petitioner to conduct the meeting on

09.04.2022 at Ratinaam Kinaru, near Rajiv Gandh Statue has been

rejected by the proceeding of the second respondent in

Na.Ka.No.32/Kaa.vu.ka/Se.Vu.Ko/2022 dated 21.03.2022. He further

submitted that the place where the petitioner/organisation

proposes to conduct the meeting has not been mentioned and also

the number of probable persons who would attend the meeting has

also not been mentioned and it should not be convened in the

place where there is thickly congested people and cause

disturbance to free flow of traffic. Further, on account of the

prevailing pandemic situation, the respondents have rejected the

representation of the petitioner/organization.

3.At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner submitted that the petitioner/organization has right

under the Constitution of India to ventilate their grievance by

conducting a protest in a democratic manner. She further

submitted that the petitioner/organization is prepared to

conduct the meeting at any other point as agreed by the

respondents, without causing disturbance to people and free flow

of traffic and further submitted that 200 members would attend

the meeting.

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions,

from the respondents submitted that they have no objection in

the petitioner's conducting the protest and public meeting in

the open place opposite to Old Bus stand, Chengalpattu, which is

earmarked for conducting public meetings.

5.In view of the above submissions made on either side, the

Writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to the petitioner

to give a fresh representation to the respondents seeking

permission to conduct the meeting on any day and the

representation shall give the details of the number of persons,

who may attend the meeting and the time of meeting. The fourth

respondent shall consider the same and shall grant permission to

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

the petitioner to conduct the meeting in the open place,

opposite to the Old bus stand, Chengalpattu Town, which is

earmarked for conducting the meetings. No costs.

SD/-

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

// TRUE COPY //