INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first petitioner is a national political party and the second petitioner is the Treasurer of the first petitioner. Assailing the alleged action of the eighth respondent by interfering with the public announcement system used by the petitioner-party in the street corner meeting held at Kanchanjunga Shopping Complex, Gangtok, East Sikkim, the petitioners have come up with this petition seeking directions to the official respondents to take action against the eighth respondent and also to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.3.00 lakhs to the petitioners for damages caused. Further, a security is sought to the entire family of the petitioner No. 2.

(2.) The brief facts, as projected by the petitioners, are the petitioners organized a street corner meeting at Kachanjunga Shopping Complex, Gangtok on 13th November, 2016 for the purpose of creation of awareness of rights and liabilities through public announcement system between 1000 to 1600 hrs. at the Kanchanjunga Shopping Complex, with prior permission dated 11th November, 2016 of the competent authority. It is submitted that the meeting was organized as per schedule, complying with the conditions of the permission granted by the fifth respondent. It is alleged that the eighth respondent, who is also arrayed as seventh respondent in official capacity, came to the venue of the meeting at around 1300 hrs. with some police personnel and started using abusive, unparliamentary and filthy language against the leaders and also disconnected the wire connection to the public announcement system, which was widely published in the electronic and print media on the next day. It is further contended that the action of the eighth respondent was unlawful, violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under the provisions of Articles 14, 19 read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India and also has caused irreparable damages to the prestige and status of the petitioners. It is further stated that the first information report (FIR) was lodged before the fifth respondent vide letter dated 14th November, 2016, which yielded no response. Thereafter, a representation was also made to the third respondent and further representation was made through advocate's notice dated 24th January, 2017 to all the concerned authorities. Finding no response/action from the authorities, the petitioners were constrained to file the instant writ petition seeking the afore stated reliefs.

(3.) Mr. Pratap Khati, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would contend that the eighth respondent has exceeded his jurisdiction and violated the fundamental rights of the petitioners enshrined under Articles 14, 19 (1) (a) (b) and 21 of the Constitution of India. The said respondent disconnected the wire connecting the public announcement system, knowing fully well that the meeting was conducted with due permission from the competent authority. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.00 lakhs and also a direction to the authorities to take stringent action against him. Referring to a decision of the Supreme Court in Anita Thakur & Ors. v. Govt. of J & K & Ors., AIR 2016 SC 3803, wherein Rs.00 lakhs in total as compensation was awarded to the petitioners therein, the learned counsel would submit that the petitioners are also entitled to the compensation as prayed for.