A. Arputharaj v. The Corporation of Chennai & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 12..06..2008CORAMThe Honourable Mr. Justice A.K. Ganguly, Chief JusticeandThe Honourable Mr. Justice F.M. Ibrahim KalifullaWrit Petition No.8876 of 2008A. Arputharaj.. Petitionerversus1.The Corporation of Chennai, Rep. by its Commissioner, Chennai-3.

The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Rep. by its Member Secretary,100, Anna Salai, Chennai.

The Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai-8... Respondents- - - - -Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ ofmandamus directing the respondents to forbear from granting any permission to organize or conduct any public meetings whether political or religious or otherwise in Pulla AvenueMain Road, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai.- - - - - For Petitioner : Mr. T. MohanFor Respondent-1 : Mr. G.T. Subramanian For Respondent-2 : Mr. RamanlalFor Respondent-3 : Mr. Raja Kalifulla, Govt. Pleader- - - - -

O R D E R( Delivered by The Honourable Chief Justice )Heard the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed, in public interest, by one A. Arputharaj, claiming https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ himself to be the President of Shri Gajalakshmi Colony Slum WelfareAssociation in order to prevent holding of public meeting in a busy thoroughfare. The allegation is that the meeting takes place quite frequently at Pulla Avenue, which is close to the Central Maidan in the city of Chennai. The same is also close to the AminjikaraiPolice Station. Some photographs have been filed in the additional typed set of documents to show that chairs are placed on the public road in such a fashion as to make it very difficult for the commuters to use the said road. It is, no doubt, true that holding of a public meeting is part of the democratic right of various political parties. But exercise of such democratic right presupposes that the rights of other citizens or persons to use the public road should not be completely lost sight of.2. Under the municipal laws of various States, all such public road and streets vest with the respective Municipal Corporations andit is the Municipal Corporation concerned which is statutorilyauthorized to regulate the holding of such meetings on public roads. The police authorities also have been vested with powers under various Police Acts to grant permission to hold such meetings.3. In the instant case, the Chennai City Municipal CorporationAct, 1919, which is a pre-constitutional law, is still holding the field. Under Section 220 of the said Act, there is a prohibition against an obstruction on the streets, but the said Section does not clamp an absolute prohibition, but regulates cases of such obstruction or encroachment on certain conditions. Section 223 of the Act permits such encroachment only upon the licence to be granted by the Commissioner to the owner or occupier of any premises. Section 226, which may be relevant in this connection, permits that such obstruction by any person may be caused only with the permission of the Commissioner.

For a better appreciation of the legal position, Section 226is set out below :-"226. Making holes and causing obstruction.–- (1) Noperson shall make a hole or cause any obstruction in any street unless he previously obtains the permission of the commissioner and complies with such conditions as he may impose. (2) When such permission is granted, such personshall, at his own expense, cause such hole or obstruction to be sufficiently fenced, and enclosed, until the hole or obstruction is filled up or removed and shall cause such hole or obstruction to be sufficiently lighted during the night. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (3) If any obstruction is caused in any street by the fall of structures, trees, or the fences, the owner oroccupier of the premises concerned shall within twlevehours of the occurrence of such fall, or within such further period as the commissioner may [by written order]1allow, clear the street of such obstruction. "Reference in this connection may also be made to the Madras CityPolice Act, 1888 and Section 41 thereof. Section 41 of the said Actgives power to the Commissioner of Police to regulate assemblies, meetings and processions in public places.

Therefore, on a conjoint reading of Section 41 of the MadrasCity Police Act, 1888 and Section 226 of the Chennai City MunicipalCorporation Act, 1919, it appears that it is for the Commissioner of Police and the Commissioner of the Corporation of Chennai to give permission regulating the use of public roads and streets even temporarily for the purpose of holding meetings. This Court has no doubt that both these statutory authorities, being highly placed authorities, will exercise their discretion in a reasonable manner.

Now, there is a greater awareness of citizens' rights and people are more alert these days to prevent pollution of all kind, including noise pollution, and the Courts have started regulating exercise of power by such authorities.

The Court exercises such powers in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India since the Apex Court has held in a large number of cases that the fundamental right to enjoy life under Article 21 of the Constitution includes aright to enjoy finer graces of life, which obviously means life, free from pollution of all kind, including noise pollution. Apart from that, choking completely a public road for holding a meeting, even for a temporary period, may affect a person's right of access toone's house or even access to a hospital or for medical assistance or access to such other public utility centres. This right is certainly covered within the sweep of Article 21.

Considering all these aspects of the matter, this Court deemsit fit and necessary to issue certain directions for regulating the exercise of discretion of both the Commissioner of Police and the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai. We are passing this order considering the stand taken by the State of Tamil Nadu before the Supreme Court in the case of K.K. Road Merchants vs. DistrictCollector reported in (2004) 13 S.C.C. 61, where in an affidavit filed before the Honourable Supreme Court, the stand taken on part of 1Substituted for the word "by notice" by section 116 of the Chennai City Municipal (Amendment) Act, 1936 (Tamil NaduAct X of 1936). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Government of Tamil Nadu is not to allow any meeting in a public road and in view of the said stand being taken by the Government of Tamil Nadu, the Honourable Supreme Court did not pass any further order in that matter, but endorsed the stand of the State of TamilNadu on its affidavit.

Considering all these facts, the directions which this Courtproposes to pass are as under :-(1) Even if the Commissioner of Police or the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai grants permission for holding meeting in a public road, while granting such permission, the authorities must ensure that the entire portion of the road is not blocked; sufficient passage is left for movement of pedestrians and movement of vehicular traffic or movement of ambulance, in cases of emergency. (2) Such obstruction should not be allowed to continue for a period of more than three hours at a stretch. (3) Such obstruction should not be allowed to take place during peak or rush hours. (4) Loudspeakers or amplifiers which are used at the time of holding such meetings must not be allowed to play at a sound level higher than the limit permissible under the pollution laws, viz. the Noise Pollution (Regulationand Control) Rules, 2000.(5) Under no circumstances such meetings should beallowed to continue beyond 10'o clock at night. (6) After the meeting is over, the parties or the organisations holding such meeting must dismantle the temporary erections and restore the road to its previous position, including the filling up of potholes, if any, created for holding the meeting. (7) It is open to the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai to levy such charges/damages for holding such meetings as are in compliance with the relevant statutory rules, and the parties holding such meetings must deposit the same before the permission is granted.

This Court hopes and trusts that the directions which have been given, having been given in public interest, should be obeyed by all parties or organisations which want to hold public meetings, since in a democracy, the rights of everyone, including the rights of the minority, must be respected. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

This Court directs both the authorities, viz., the Commissioner of Police and the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennaito strictly follow these guidelines in the matter of granting permissions and this Court makes it clear that no such meetings should be held without obtaining prior permission from the aforesaid authorities.