Public interest in free expression prevails over private business interests wherever conflict arises, provided reasonable access and business continuity are ensured.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 20.04.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY R.Muthuraja ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Collector, Tenkasi, Tenkasi District 2.The Tahsildar, Sankarankovil Taluk, Tenkasi District.

3.The Assistant Engineer (State Highways), Construction and Maintenance Department, Sankarankovil West Division, Tenkasi District.

4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sankarankovil, Tenkasi District.

5.The Inspector of Police, Sankarankovil Town Police Station, Sankarankovil, Tenkasi District. ...Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 not to give permission for any public meeting/gathering in front of the petitioner's shop namely Ariya Bhavan situated in Sankarankovil to Rajapalayam Main Road, Tenkasi District.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.J.Karthick For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.M.Lingadurai, Special Government Pleader For R-4 and R-5 : Mr.K.Gnanasekaran, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

ORDER The writ petition is filed for a mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 not to give permission for any public meeting/ gathering in front of the petitioners shop namely Ariya Bhavan situated Sankarankovil to Rajapalayam Main Road, Tenkasi District.

2. Heard Mr.R.J.Karthick, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.M.Lingadurai, learned counsel, who takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.K.Gnanasekaran, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), who takes notice on behalf of the respondents 4 and 5.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s restaurant is situated at the said place and permissions are frequently being granted for demonstrations and other public meetings in the vicinity. The persons obtaining such permission completely block the ingress and egress to the petitioner’s establishment and also use high decibel loudspeakers, thereby seriously interfering with the petitioner’s right to carry on its business in a peaceful manner. On many occasions, protests are also conducted without obtaining proper permission.

4. Per contra, learned Special Government Pleader, taking notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, would submit that the District Collector, along with the competent authorities, has identified the particular site as suitable for conducting public meetings, protests, etc. The said place has been used for such purposes for several years. It was further submitted that even the Father of the Nation, Gandhiji, had conducted protests at this place.

5. In view thereof, considering the availability of space and other requirements, permission is being granted for conducting meetings at the said place. It was further submitted that if any person conducts a meeting without appropriate permission, and if the same is brought to the notice of the authorities, appropriate action will be taken.

6. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

7. In a democracy, it is essential to have designated places for conducting public meetings, protests, etc., so as to enable people to ventilate their grievances in a public manner. When such public interest comes into conflict with the petitioner’s private interest, to a certain extent, the petitioner’s private interest must give way to the larger public interest. Democracy forms part of the basic structure of our Constitution.

8. At the same time, while granting permission, due regard must had to ensure that the ingress and egress to the petitioner’s restaurant are