K.PHILIPRAJA Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking to quash the order of the 2nd respondent dated 02.12.2013 with a consequential direction to the respondents to grant permission to the petitioner to conduct Christmas Peace Rally at Erode Town on 14.12.2013.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he belongs to Christian religion and the Christian people in Erode Town are used to celebrate Christmas in a grand way at Erode Town and conduct a rally with the sole intention to develop communal harmony in a peaceful manner. The rally was conducted in the previous year also on 12.12.2012 from Erode Thindal Bus Stand to Erode CSI Grounds. The very purpose of such rally is to create communal harmony and pray to God to save the earth from communal violence, natural calamities, starvation and contagious diseases and there will also be a mass prayer at the end of the rally. 2a. It is submitted by the petitioner that likewise, this year also a rally is proposed to be organized on 14.12.2013 at 3.00 p.m. under the guidance of Rev. Dr. Sisva M.Prakash, Commissioner, Tamil Nadu State Minority Commission. In this regard, the petitioner also made a representation on 12.10.2013 to the 1st respondent to accord permission for the rally starting from Veerappampalayam junction to C.S.I. Ground via Collector Office and Pannerselvam Park with an undertaking of not indulging in conversion and other activities. Since the said representation was kept pending for quite a long time, on earlier occasion, the petitioner was forced to file a writ petition, seeking similar request, wherein this Court was pleased to pass a time bound order on 26.11.2013, directing the 1st respondent to consider the application of petitioner and pass orders on or before 06.12.2023. 2b. The contention of the petitioner is that be that as it may, the 2nd respondent, on production of the said order, to the shock and surprise, rejected the request of petitioner vide order dated 02.12.2013 on some untenable grounds and apprehensions without any enquiry.

(3.) The impugned order is challenged on the following grounds: i)that the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 19(a), 19(b) and 25 of the Constitution of India, thereby suppressing the freedom of speech and expression; ii)that the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner based on assumption and presumption without any supporting material and the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction to pass such order of rejection; iii)that the apprehension of the 2nd respondent is untenable, as there will not be any disturbance to the general public and free flow of public due to the rally being conducted on Saturday at 3:00 p.m; iv)that the 2nd respondent has failed to note that the rally was conducted in the last year in a peaceful manner.