SREENIVASAN VENUGOPAL Vs. KHALID MUNDAPPILLY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Review Petitioner in this Review Petition is stated to be Secretary of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhakam. Even though petitioner has stated that he is aggrieved by the judgment, petitioner has no case that his political party has authorised him to file this Review Petition. He has stated that his party is very influential in Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry and have followers in Kerala as well. Petitioner's party has no member in the State Legislative Assembly. It is not known whether petitioner's party has any representation in Municipal council or Panchayath council in the State. In any case, since judgment affects mainly political parties and trade unions, we do not think individuals though holding a party position can have any grievance about the judgment which prohibits holding of meetings on public roads and road margins. We do not find any grievance for the petitioner as an individual. It is also pertinent to note that petitioner has specifically stated that petitioner does not approve holding of meetings on roads and the limited prayer is to permit meetings on road margins. Road margins are only limited space for the passage of pedestrians, animals, and therefore there is no scope for considering this question. The other grounds raised are rejected by us by our order in RP 670 of 2010 filed by the State against the very same judgment. We therefore dismiss this Review Petition.