V MANIMARAN Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE KANNAMANGALAM TALUK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal.

(2.) HEARD, Mr. S. Rajinikanth, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. N. Senthilkumar, learned Additional Government Reader for respondent.

(3.) THE respondent has filed a counter, wherein it is stated that the petitioner is the Secretary of VCK Camp, Kattukarnnallur and it is not correct to state that one K.P. Baskaran was falsely implicated in the case by the respondent police. In fact, only on the basis of the complaint which made out cognizable offences, the said case was registered against K.P. Baskaran. For registering a case against one person on the basis of the complaint which made out cognizable offences, the petitioner's party have taken a decision to hold demonstration in a democratic manner against the police atrocities on 17.6.2010 at 3.00 p.m. near bus stand, which is against law. Further, it is stated that the said KP.Baskaran was not arrested on the basis of his affiliation to VCK whereas the case was registered against him on the basis of his individual capacity for the offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating committed by him. It is further stated that the petitioner has given a petition on 14.6.2010 to grant permission to hold demonstration on 17.6.2010. Considering the implications of law and order problem and hindrance to the free flow of vehicular traffic, permission was refused after duly explaining the reasons for refusal. So, it is not correct to state that the order dated 14.6.2010, refusing permission is done without giving any opportunity to the petitioner and that the said order is unjust and illegal. It is further stated that the impugned order refusing to hold demonstration is not violative of Article 19(l)(a)(b)(c) of the Constitution of India and also not violative of Section 3(2) of the Police Act and the principles of natural justice. THE impugned order was served on the petitioner on 14.6.2010. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner should have approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police or the Superintendent of Police, Thiruvannamalai seeking permission to hoJd such demonstration. Without availing such remedies, the petitioner is not entitled to approach this Court. It is apparent that, the petitioner, in order to get some publicity and with some ulterior motive has come forward with this writ petition.