P JAYASEELAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition has been filed praying for a writ of certioraried Mandamus challenging the order passed by the third respondent, rejecting the request of the petitioner to hold a hunger demonstration, on 13.11.2010.

(2.) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the third respondent had passed the impugned order contrary to the principles enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. It has also been submitted that the third respondent had rejected the request of the petitioner without following the provisions of Article 19(2) of Constitution of India.

(3.) THE learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that this petition has become infructous, in view of the fact that the representation of the petitioner, dated 08.11.2010, had been submitted, for the grant of permission to hold the demonstration, on 13.11.2010. He had also submitted that in the representation of the petitioner, dated 08.11.2010, it had been mentioned that the respondents had not taken sufficient steps to prevent the kidnapping of school children, due to political interference. In such circumstances, the third respondent had passed an order rejecting the request of the petitioner to hold the demonstration, on 13.11.2010. In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, it is seen that the impugned order of the third respondent , dated 11.11.2010, relates to the request of the petitioner to hold a demonstration, on 13.11.2010. Therefore, this Writ Petition has become infructuous. Hence, this petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. However, this Court finds it appropriate to hold that it would be open to the petitioner to submit his representation to the authorities concerned, including the respondents in the present writ petition, requesting for permission to hold demonstrations in a peaceful way, within the limits prescribed by law, if he deems it fit to do so, and on such representation being made, the respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law.