M. Balaguru v. The Commissioner of Police,Egmore,Chennai – 600 008 & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 12-5-2010CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMARW.P.No.1017 of 2010M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2010M. Balaguru ... PetitionerVs.1.The Commissioner of Police,Egmore,Chennai – 600 008.2.The Assistant Commissioner of Police,T. Nagar Range,Chennai.3.The Inspector of Police,T.Nagar Police Station,Chennai – 600 017.4.The Inspector General of Police,Intelligence Wing, DGP's Office,Mylapore,Chennai – 600 004.5.The Assistant Commissioner of Police,Intelligence Wing,O/o.Commissioner of Police,Chennai – 600 008. ... Respondents(R-5 impleaded as per the order of Court dated 30-3-2010 in W.P.No.1017 of 2010)The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamusdirecting the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner'sfundamental rights and direct to permit the petitioner to conduct apublic meeting on 12th February, 2010, at Muthurangan Salai, T.Nagar,Chennai – 600017 and further direct an actual damages ofRs.1,00,000/- and award exemplary costs. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioner:Mr.R.KaruppanFor Respondents :Mr.A.Edwin PrabhakarAddl. Government Pleader O R D E RThe prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamusdirecting the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner'sfundamental rights and direct to permit the petitioner to conductpublic meeting on 12.2.2010 at Muthurangan Salai, T.Nagar, Chennai-600017 and further direct to pay to the petitioner the actual damagesof Rs.1,00,000/- and award exemplary cost.2.The case of the petitioner is that the permission given toconduct public meetings on 5.1.2010 regarding the assassination ofSri.Rajiv Gandhi and wrongful blame cast on the Tamils and expose thereal culprit was cancelled by the second respondent at 12.00 noon onthe same day. On 25.12.2009, the petitioner applied for suchpermission setting out the venue, the list of speakers and permissionwas granted on 31.12.2009. It is alleged in the affidavit that onearlier occasions, the petitioner and similarly placed personsconducted similar meetings. Due to the cancellation order passed bythe second respondent at the last moment, petitioner incurred anexpense of Rs.1.00 lakh as speakers have arrived from Bangalore,Trichy, Cuddalore, Ramanathapuram, Villupuram, etc., and for makingarrangement for the said meeting. Hence a compensation of Rs.1.00lakh towards loss sustained by the petitioner in making arrangementfor the meeting is prayed for.3.The writ petition was filed on 9.1.2010. On 29.1.2010 aninterim order was passed by this Court by recording the statementmade by the Additional Government Pleader stating that for themeeting to be held on 12.2.2010, orders would be passed on 29.1.2010itself and the same will be served on the petitioner. Thereafter thecase was adjourned to 2.2.2010. However, permission was not grantedto conduct the meeting on 12.2.2010. Thereafter, the petitionersought for permission to conduct a meeting on 22.3.2010 from 6.00p.m. to 10.30 p.m. and by order dated 7.3.2010, this Court directedthe second respondent to consider the request seeking permission toconduct meeting on 22.3.2010 based on the application submitted on18.3.2010. On 18.3.2010, the second respondent granted permission toconduct meeting with 14 conditions, pursuant to which the meeting wasconducted by the petitioner on 22.3.2010 and therefore the first limbof the prayer seeking permission to conduct public meeting atMuthurangam Salai, T.Nagar, Chennai-600017, no longer survives. Thelearned counsel for the petitioner argued that the second limb of theprayer seeking compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh towards loss and damages https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for the last minute cancellation of meeting proposed to be held on5.1.2010 has to be decided in this writ petition and propercompensation has to be ordered by this Court.4.The respondents have filed counter affidavit in this writpetition and justified the cancellation order passed on 5.1.2010 bystating that on 31.12.2009 permission was granted to conduct publicmeeting regarding 'the assassination of Sri.Rajiv Gandhi and wrongfulblame cast on Tamils and to expose the real culprits'. Thereafter thePolice received information against the conduct of meeting fromIntelligence Sources that there is every likelihood of law and orderproblem and imminent possibility of unrest and disturbance of publicorder and tranquility, as the topic itself is leading to controversyfrom a section of the people in the larger interest of the publicsafety and public order. Therefore the permission granted on31.12.2009 was cancelled to prevent law and order problem and anorder was passed under section 41 of the Chennai City Police Act,1888. According to the respondents, the said cancellation order waspassed under Section 41(3) of the Act and no motive to stop themeeting is available, except on public interest and public safety.There is no illegality in the order and no compensation can beclaimed from the respondents for the cancelled meeting.5.Petitioner has filed a reply affidavit for the said counteraffidavit by stating that the cancellation order was passed withoutany reason and extensive preparation having been made already forconducting the meeting on 5.1.2010, the petitioner incurred expensesfor printing posters and the petitioner also produced bills issued bySri Kanagadurga Litho Press to show that he has paid Rs.34,000/-towards printing the posters. It is also stated in the replyaffidavit that the persons who issued bills were threatened andtortured by the police.6.The second respondent filed rejoinder to the reply affidavitby stating that the letter obtained from Sri Kanagadurga Litho Pressand one Chandrasekaran, owner of Sekar Electricals and Sound Servicesclearly established the fact that the amount paid for the meetingdated 5.1.2010 was adjusted towards the expenses for conducting themeeting on 22.3.2010. The allegation about the threatening of thepersons, who issued the bills is denied. The alleged bill producedby the petitioner from Sri Kanagadurga Litho Press is stated as bogusbill and the same cannot be relied upon by this Court for the awardof compensation as the bills have to be independently proved. It isfurther stated in the rejoinder affidavit that no mala fide can beattributed against the second respondent as the order was passedtaking note of the larger interest of the public in terms of Section41 of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7.The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that thepetitioner's right to freedom of expression is very much affected andthe second respondent having granted permission ought not to havecancelled the order granting permission at the last minute and due tothe cancellation of the meeting at the last minute, the petitionerwas compelled to spend towards inviting Speakers, printing of postersand for making of arrangements to conduct the meeting and thereforethe petitioner is entitled to get compensation for the loss sustained.8.The learned Additional Government Pleader on the basis ofthe counter affidavit as well as rejoinder affidavit submitted thatthe respondents are doing their sovereign function viz., maintainingthe law and order and the second respondent having receivedIntelligence information about the likelihood of breach of peace, ifthe meeting was allowed to go on 5.1.2010, by exercising powers undersection 41 of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888, withdrew thepermission granted, keeping in mind the public interest for themaintenance of public peace in the locality and there is noillegality in the said order. The alleged loss sustained by thepetitioner is not genuine as the meeting originally cancelled wassubsequently conducted on 22.3.2010 and the amount paid towardsprinting of posters and for loud speakers, etc., was adjusted andeven if the petitioner has got any further grievance the same cannotbe agitated before this Court without ascertaining the actual loss ordamages sustained by the petitioner and therefore the writ petitionfiled for claiming damages is unsustainable.9.I have considered the rival submissions made by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner as well as the learned AdditionalGovernment Pleader for the respondents.10.The issues to be decided in this writ petition are,(i)Whether the second respondent is right in cancelling thepermission granted on 31.12.2009 to conduct public meeting on5.1.2010 at the last moment ?(ii)Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation for thealleged loss due to the cancellation of the meeting proposed to beheld on 5.1.2010 ?11.Issue No.1: In the affidavit filed in support of the writpetition, the petitioner has clearly stated the purpose for which themeeting was arranged. It is an undisputed fact that the petitionersought for permission to conduct public meeting on 5.1.2010 and thetopic was about the assassination of Sri.Rajiv Gandhi, former PrimeMinister of India. Considering the right of the organisers inrespect of their freedom of expression and taking note of the overallaspects, the second respondent thought fit to grant permission byorder dated 31.12.2009. The second respondent subsequently receivedIntelligence report from various sources apprehending likelihood of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ breach of law and order problem and imminent possibility of unrestand disturbance of public order and tranquility as the title chosenby the petitioner was controversial. Hence the permission alreadygranted was cancelled in exercise of the powers conferred undersection 41 of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888.12.Section 41 of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888 clearlyempowers the police authority to regulate assemblies, meetings andprocessions in public places. When the police receive Intelligencereport with regard to the disturbance of law and order problem, toprevent the same, it is their duty to prohibit the conduct of themeeting. Power to regulate includes power to cancel the permissionalready granted for valid reasons. In this case, the secondrespondent has given valid reasons in the counter affidavit bystating that Intelligence report was received apprehending likelihoodof law and order problem and imminent possibility of unrest anddisturbance of public order and tranquility. When the police isvested with the said power under Section 41 of the Act, thepetitioner cannot contend that the permission already granted oughtnot to have been cancelled. The ground reality about the likelihoodof disturbance of public order and tranquility can be ascertainedonly by the Officer, who is in charge of the area based on theIntelligence report and this Court in exercise of its powers underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot find out whetherthere was any sufficient ground to arrive at a decision to cancel thepermission already granted. Since no mala fide is alleged againstthe second respondent and the permission having been granted by thevery same second respondent for the subsequent meeting held on22.3.2010, I am of the view that the cancellation of permissionoriginally granted to conduct the meeting on 5.1.2010 based on theIntelligence report cannot be found fault with.13.It is well settled in law that law enforcing authorities arethe best judge for meeting a situation prevailing in a particularlocality based on which appropriate decision is to be taken either togrant permission to conduct meeting in a particular place and at aparticular time. The Division Bench of this Court in the decisionreported in 2004 WLR 865 (Rama.Muthuramalingam, State PropagandaCommittee Member, Thanthai Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam v. DeputySuperintendent of Police, Mannargudi and Another) considered similarissue and held that the High Court in writ jurisdiction cannot givepositive direction to grant permission to conduct public meeting,even though police refuse to grant permission. It is further heldtherein that if the administrative authorities feel that by grantingpermission to conduct meeting it may create a law and order or publicorder problem, then they may prohibit such activities. Applying theprinciple laid down by the Division Bench to the facts of this case,I am of the view that the second respondent is justified in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ cancelling the permission granted to conduct meeting on 5.1.2010 andthere is no error in the said decision.14.Issue No.2:Insofar as the direction to ordercompensation to the petitioner towards the alleged loss sustained bythe petitioner due to the last minute cancellation of the meeting,the decision of the second respondent having been taken formaintaining public safety and public order, individual loss even ifany sustained, cannot be ordered to be compensated. It is wellsettled in law that maintenance of public order is the sovereignfunction of the State and here the second respondent has preventedthe petitioner from conducting the meeting, taking note of the publicsafety and public order.15.In the order granting permission to conduct meeting issuedon 31.12.2009 in clause 9 it is clearly stated that the secondrespondent is entitled to cancel the permission granted if the policereceive any report that by conducting the meeting public peace andtranquility will be affected. Thus, the petitioner was already puton notice/caution. In the decision reported in (2002) 7 SCC 478(Rabindra Nath Ghosal v. University of Calcutta) the Supreme Courtconsidered the issue regarding award of compensation if fundamentalright of a citizen is infringed. In the said judgment in paragraph 9it is held as follows:"9. The courts having the obligation tosatisfy the social aspiration of the citizens haveto apply the tool and grant compensation asdamages in public law proceedings. Consequentlywhen the court moulds the relief in proceedingsunder Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitutionseeking enforcement or protection of fundamentalrights and grants compensation, it does so underthe public law by way of penalising the wrongdoerand fixing the liability for the public wrong onthe State which has failed in its public duty toprotect the fundamental rights of the citizens.But it would not be correct to assume that everyminor infraction of public duty by every publicofficer would commend the court to grantcompensation in a petition under Articles 226 and32 by applying the principle of public lawproceeding. The court in exercise of extraordinarypower under Articles 226 and 32 of theConstitution, therefore, would not award damagesagainst public authorities merely because theyhave made some order which turns out to be ultravires, or there has been some inaction in theperformance of the duties unless there is maliceor conscious abuse. Before exemplary damages canbe awarded it must be shown that some fundamental https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ right under Article 21 has been infringed byarbitrary or capricious action on the part of thepublic functionaries and that the sufferer was ahelpless victim of that act."From the above judgment it is evident that for claiming compensationunder public law, one has to satisfy the Court that the authorityacted with malice or conscious abuse. In this case the petitionerhas not established any malice or conscious abuse of power on thepart of the second respondent to claim compensation. Further thepetitioner is claiming right under Article 19(1)(b) of theConstitution of India. Such right is subject to restrictions imposedunder Article 19(3) of the Constitution of India and not an absoluteright.16.If the police failed to prevent such a meeting and if anydamages are caused by the organisers of the meeting againstindividual persons, then only the State Machinery can be blamed fornot taking effective precautionary measures and the State can beordered to pay compensation to the affected person for notmaintaining the law and order properly. That being not the casehere, the petitioner is not entitled to get compensation on theground that due to last minute cancellation he incurred expenses formaking arrangements for the meeting.17.Though the cancellation order passed by the secondrespondent on 5.1.2010 at the last moment is upheld on the facts andcircumstances of this case, I am constrained to state that such kindof last minute cancellation of meetings should be avoided to preventthe wasteful expenditure by the organisers of the meetings.Intelligence report can be obtained and viewed in the properperspective at least some time in advance, so that the person who hasbeen given permission, can be given advance intimation to cancel themeeting so, that unnecessary expenses can be avoided. Therespondents shall consider the said aspect in future so that decisioncan be arrived at either to grant permission or to cancel thepermission already granted, at the earliest possible time.The writ petition is dismissed with above observations. Nocosts. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Vacation Officer/true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar.vr https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1.The Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.2.The Assistant Commissioner of Police,T. Nagar Range,Chennai.3.The Inspector of Police, T.Nagar Police Station,Chennai – 600 017.4.The Inspector General of Police,Intelligence Wing, DGP's Office,Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.5.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Intelligence Wing,O/o.Commissioner of Police, Chennai – 600 008.+ 1 cc to Mr.R.Karuppan, CC SR 30367+ 1 cc to Govt., Pleader Sr 36353 Order in W.P.No.1017 of 2010 BS (CO)RH (13.5.10)