ORDER:

The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief/s:-

‘‘… to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 herein in issuing the Impugned Proceedings C.No.121/SB-XI/ WNPY/2026 dated:07-04-2026 cancelling the permission granted by the 3rd Respondent herein vide Proceedings No.73/Mike/SDPO-WNP/2026 dated: 03-04-2026 for conduct of Public Meeting of BRS Party at Dharna Chowk, Gollapally Village gate of Revally Mandal on 09.04.2026 from 05:00 pm to 09:00 pm as being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14, 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the Proceedings C.No.121/SB- XI/WNPY/2026 dated:07-04-2026 issued by the 2nd Respondent and pass such other and further orders …”

2. Heard Mr.T.V.Ramana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Mahesh Raje, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the District President of BRS Political Party, Wanaparthy District, Telangana State. On 03.04.2026, the BRS Party had made an application to respondent No.3 seeking permission to organize a Public meeting and to use Mike/Box type speaker at Dharna Chowk, Gollapally Village gate, Revally Mandal, Wanaparthy District and requested the Police to arrange adequate Police bandobast to maintain law and order in order to ensure peaceful conduct of Public meeting. He submits that the said meeting would be attended by Sri T.Harish Rao, MLA, Siddipet Assembly Constituency and former Irrigation Minister of Telangana State and Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, former Minister of Telangana State along with other public representatives.

4. He contends that respondent No.3, vide Proceedings No.73/Mike/SDPO-WNP/2026 dated 03.04.2026 granted permission for conduct of Public meeting of BRS Party at Dharna Chowk, Gollapally Village gate of Revally Mandal on 09.04.2026 from 05:00 P.M. to 09:00 P.M. by imposing (26) conditions. While so, surprisingly, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, respondent No.2 had issued the impugned proceedings vide C.No.121/SB-XI/WN PY/2026 dated:07.04.2026 i.e., yesterday cancelling the permission granted by respondent No.3 by stating as follows:-

“Whereas, present Law & Order situations and circumstances, it is considered necessary to take preventive measures in the interest of maintenance of public order and transquility.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred under relevant provisions of law, the permission granted vide reference 1st cited is hereby cancelled with immediate effect.”

5. He further contends that respondent No.3 had not assigned any specific cogent reason for passing the impugned proceedings and that the same curtails the fundamental right to speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(b) of Constitution of India. Relying on the order dated 21.11.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.No.32799 of 2024 and the order dated 22.01.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.1518 of 2025, he seeks the indulgence of this Court to pass appropriate orders.

6. Learned Government Pleader for Home, by furnishing the copy of written instructions dated 08.04.2026 addressed by respondent No.2 contends that as per the intelligence inputs and the credible information, there is likelihood of mobilization of about 7,000 to 10,000 persons in the meeting which is far exceeding the permitted strength. Hence, there is a possibility of creating serious risk of crowd mismanagement and break down of law and order in the Village. He further states that public safety is of paramount importance and such kind of meetings may lead to re-occurrence of past incidents as were stated to have been reported in Lagacherla Village, thereby leading to potential and rapid escalation of violence.

7