Proposals made on behalf of petitioner laudable.

K. Chandru, J.

The petitioner is the organiser of the Peoples Watch, a Non-Governmental Organisation, functioning as a Human Rights Watch Group in the State of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner Peoples Watch claims that they are also running a Rehabilitation Centre for Torture Victims (RCTV) and also a movement called Citizens for Human Rights Movement (CHRM). They are concerned about the increased encounter killings in the State of Tamil Nadu and they have been conducting programmes with reference to preventing the encounter killing by the State police and also to sensitize all concerned about following the guidelines issued by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) on such encounters.

2. As part of their campaign, they wanted to have a public meeting on 04. 2007 at Mayiladuthurai (Nagapattinam District) and the meeting was to be presided over by the Director of Peoples Watch. It was stated that in the meeting, apart from the Director of Peoples Watch, the organisers had intended to invite retired High Court Judges, lawyers, journalists, educationalists, human right activists and political personalities. The place in which the meeting was to be held was either in the playground in front of the Office of the RDO or in the Rajan Garden.

.3. An application was also made to the first respondent on 13. 2007 by the petitioner. The said request was rejected by the first respondent vide his order dated 23. 2007. The reasons founding that order was that by stating that in view of the maintenance of law and order and the likelihood of there being a breach of peace and disturbance to public tranquility in Mayiladuthurai Sub-Division in the event of conducting such meetings and also in view of the promulgation of Regulatory order under Section 30(2) of the Police Act, 1861. It is as against the said refusal, the present petition has been filed.

.4. The Special Government Pleader, who took notice, filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the first respondent justifying the impugned order. In the counter affidavit, it was stated that the playground was a public thoroughfare and that the Rajan Garden was under the control of the Sports Authority of India. They have also stated about the death of one Shankar (alias) "Manalmedu Shankar", who was killed in an encounter. According to the Police, he was a known history sheeter and had committed several offences. But, however, in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit, it was stated by the first respondent as follows:

.Para 9: "I submit that the Police Authorities have no objection for the meeting to be conducted at any place other than Mayiladuthurai which is prone sensitive in communal and rivalry clash."

5. A reply affidavit was also filed by the petitioner refuting these allegations and it was stated that the interest of petitioner group was only to sensitise the people and for the need to preserve human right standards. It was averred that a regulatory order under Section 30(2) of the Police Act, 1861 cannot be used to curtail fundamental right to assemble and also the freedom to express ones own opinion. The petitioner had also disputed the objection regarding the venue selected by the petitioner and it was also stated that since the meeting was to be held on a Sunday evening, there will not be any vehicular traffic and the fact that Mayiladuthurai is vulnerable to communal clashes and gang violence have no bearing on the public meeting which was to be addressed by human right activists.

6. Heard the arguments of Ms. Sudha Ramalingam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Dhandapani, learned Special Government Pleader representing the respondents and have perused the records.

.7. When the matter was called on 24.01.2008 and after hearing some arguments, it was suggested to the respondents to reconsider their decision in refusing permission. The respondents relied upon paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit extracted above and stated that the petitioners may be adv