(1.) -All India Loco Running Staff Association, represented by its President, South Zone, has preferred this writ petition praying for issue of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the respondent, dated 11 Aug. 1988, and direct the respondent to accord permission under Sec. 41, Madras City Police Act, 1888, as requested by the petitioner by its application, dated 20 Aug. 1988, to observe a hunger-fast near the out gate of the office of the General Manager, Southern Railway at Walltax Road, Madras, from 10 A.M. on 5 Sept. 1988 till 6.00 P.M on 6 Sept. 1988.
(2.) The petitioner is a registered union of workers who belong to the category of running staff in the railways. For the purpose of protecting their rights and securing better working conditions for its members, the petitioner has adopted legal and constitutional means so far, like approaching Courts, exercise of the rights of a trade union, holding demonstration dharnas, etc., The running staff of the railways have several long pending grievances against the Railway Administration. Since their demands were not being met, the All India Loco Running Staff Association took a decision to have an all India programme of hunger-fast by its members before the headquarters of the administration in each centre. In view of this decision, it seems that the petitioner applied on 5 Aug. 1988, to the respondent requesting for permission to be granted for his members to assemble for a hunger-fast near the "out" gate of the office of the General Manager, Southern Railway, Walltax Road, Madras, from 10.00 hours on 22 Aug. 1988 to 18.00 hours on 23 Aug. 1988. Since the petitioner did not receive any reply from the respondent, they sought for a personal interview which was granted by the respondent on 11 Aug. 1988. It is alleged in the affidavit that on 9 Aug. 1988, the Inspector of Police, C-1 Flower Bazaar Police Station, Madras, sent a hand written letter to the petitioner stating that they may select a place near Kannagi Statue in Kamarajar Salai for observing the hunger-fast. It is alleged in the affidavit filed by petitioner, that at the interview on 11 Aug. 1988 the respondent was very abrupt and most unwilling to hear the petitioner. It is further alleged that the respondent informed him that he would grant permission to take out a procession starting from the General Managers office up to any point, but would not grant permission to observe the fast outside the office. The respondent by his proceedings, dated 11 Aug. 1988, rejected the request of the petitioner to organise a 32 hours fast on " law and order and traffic point of view. At this stage, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition before this Court.
(3.) On 23 Aug. 1988, notice of motion has been ordered by Sivasubramaniam, J., returnable by 26 Aug. 1988. Private notice was also permitted by the learned Judge.