The court held that obtaining traffic police clearance is not a mandatory prerequisite for applying for permission to hold a public meeting and that authorities must decide on such applications timely to avoid prejudice to the applicant.

O R D E R

Challenging the inaction on the part of respondents 2 and 3 in granting permission to the petitioner union to conduct meeting of its member employees and teachers on 23.08.2026 from 1.00 PM to 10.00 PM at Lal Bahadur Stadium, Hyderabad, pursuant to the representation of the petitioner union dt.11.08.2026 which was received on 13.08.2026 by the respondent police, this Writ Petition is filed.

2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner union has been conducting such meetings year after year and on earlier occasions permission was granted with certain conditions and whenever permission was not granted, the union has approached this Court and the Court has granted permission. It is submitted that the petitioner union has made a representation well in advance, i.e., on 11.08.2026 which was received by the respondent police on 13.08.2026, but yet there is no communication to the petitioner herein about the outcome of their representation. It is submitted that the meeting is scheduled to be held on 23.08.2026 and all arrangements have already been made and since no communication is coming from the respondent officials, this Writ Petition is filed and is moved as a lunch motion today. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner therefore prayed that the respondents be directed to accord permission for the meeting. It is submitted that the petitioner union members are all Government employees and are disciplined people governed by Conduct Rules and they are ready to give an undertaking to maintain discipline, law and order.

3. Learned Government Pleader for Home, however, opposed the said contention and submitted that the petitioner union has nsot obtained the clearance from the traffic police and further the concerned SHO has not recommended the permission since the possible congregation is 10,000 people and there would be law and order problem as well as traffic problem on the said date. It is also stated that in view of Bonalu festival Bandobust duty in the Gunfoundry area under the jurisdiction of Abid Road Police Station on 23.08.2026 and 24.08.2026, a substantial number of police personnel are required to be deployed for the said bandobust arrangements. He further submitted that the concerned SHO has submitted his comments on the application of the petitioner to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Khairathabad Zone, Hyderabad by letter dt.19.08.2026, who is yet to take a decision thereon and a copy of the same is furnished to this Court.

4. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that in the year 2023, a proposal was made to the meeting of 5,000 people and taking the same into consideration, the DGP concerned, vide proceedings dt.08.08.2023, has granted permission with several conditions and one of the conditions is that the organizers have to approach and obtain clearance from the traffic police authorities towards regulation of traffic. The order was also communicated to the concerned DCP and ACP, Traffic, Hyderabad for ensuring maintenance of traffic. Therefore, this Court finds that it is not mandatory that the petitioner obtains permission from the traffic police before making an application for permission for conducting a meeting. Since the petitioner made an application well in advance and the same was not refused by the respondents in time for the petitioner to change the venue or schedule of the meeting, this Court directs respondents 2 and 3 to grant permission to the petitioner su