Heard both sides.
2.The petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the order of the 3rd respondent, dated 07.12.2008, by which the 3rd respondent prohibited the procession to be taken to a particular street.
3.The case of the petitioner is that the villagers of Pillayarpuram are entitled to take their deity Arulmighu Mutharamman through all the public streets of their village and it is the constitutional right to take the deity through all the streets in the village and the police can impose only reasonable restrictions. When he applied for permission, the 2nd respondent has passed the impugned order, prohibiting the procession to be taken through the water tank public street and this prohibition is challenged in the writ petition.
4.In the writ petition, the 3rd respondent has been impleaded in his personal capacity as certain allegations have been made against the person. According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent being the fanatic Christian, he will not allow the Hindu procession to be taken through certain streets and the 3rd respondent openly proclaimed that he will not allow the procession to be taken through a particular route, by citing law and order problem.
5.According to the petitioner, the village of Pillayarpuram is predominantly a Hindu village, Kanyakumari District and it has undergone a demographic change on account of conversion and other activities. In the village of Pilayarpuram, there are 100 Hindu families residing, whereas Christian families are numbering 20. Fortunately, peace and amity are prevailing there. There has been no communal clash at all so far. It is only the third respondent, who is instigating the religious leaders of the Christian faith to oppose the Hindus. Therefore, it was contended by the petitioner that the right of the Hindus to take the religious procession through all the public streets is a fundamental right guaranteed under
Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India and hence, the order of the 3rd respondent in prohibiting the procession to be taken through a particular street cannot be sustained and it must be set aside.
6.It is seen from the affidavit that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari, was arrayed as 2nd respondent and the person, who passed the order viz., J.R.Stalin Michael, who is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, has been arrayed 3rd respondent in his personal capacity.
7.The 2nd respondent filed the counter affidavit denying the various allegations made against him personally and also various allegations made by the petitioner in various paragraphs of the affidavit and justified the order passed by him.
8.To appreciate the contention of the petitioner that they have got every right to take the religious procession to various streets in the village. It was forcibly contended by the learned counsel, Mr.G.R.Swaminathan ,appearing for the petitioner that the respondents have got every right to impose reasonable restrictions but at the same time, the 3rd respondent acted in a mala-fide manner and has taken into consideration, the extraneous facts and prohibited the procession to be taken through the water tank street, which is a public street, only to please the Christians residing in that locality. Therefore, to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, we will have to see whether the order passed by the 2nd respondent, by his proceedings, dated 07.12.2008 is proper and whether the restrictions or prohibitions imposed by the 2nd respondent can be termed as reasonable restrictions or not.
9.As stated supra, it has been stated by the petitioner in para 5 of the affidavit that the village of Pillayarpuram is predominantly a Hindu village, peace and amity are prevailing there and there has been no communal clash at all in that village. The petitioner blamed the 3rd respondent as if, he is instigating the religious leaders of the Christian faith to oppose the Hindus.
10.In the impugned order the 3rd respondent has given the detailed reasons for imposing such restrictions. In the affidavit filed by the writ petitioner, they have not dealt with the various incidents that has been stated in the impugned order. It is seen from the impugned order that a case was registered in crime No.113 of 2008 under Section 379(N.P) of IPC, on the basis of the complaint given by one Mr.John Chelladurai, before the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari, for having removed the gate showing the way for the church. Further when the Hindus wanted to take the procession through the residents of Christians, a peace meeting was held by the Tasildhar of Agatheeswaram on 30.05.2008 and the Hindus boycotted the said meeting and they refused to arrived at any agreement. Further on 04.06.2008, the Hindus insisted that the procession must be taken through the residents of Christians and it was informed that already the prohibition order passed under section 30(2) of the Police Act, is in force. It is further stated that during peace talk held on 04.06.2008, the persons of various leaders of Hindu Organisation including former Minster Mr.T.Radhakrishnan and other persons from outside, numbering 300 had taken the temple precession through the prohibited street and thereby created law and order problem and when that was sought to be prevented, they caused damages to the police vehicle and a case was registered in crime No.153 of 2008 under
Section 147,148,188,153(A),332,336,307 of I.P.C and 3 of TNPPDL Act 1989 and 7 of 25 Arms Act 1959 and since then, the Pillayarpuram village is under the control and protection of the police force. Therefore, in such charged atmosphere, when the Hindus wanted to have the 'Karthigai festival' and take out the deity in procession and applied for permission, a peace meeting was held on 07.12.2008 and in that meeting, no consensus was arrived at between the parties, as each of them stick to their own stand and therefore, having regard to the prevailing situation, permission was granted subject to certain conditions and one of the condition is that the procession should not be taken through water tank street on the ground that it is a narrow street and Christians residing in that locality are raising their objections and it is not possible for the police to provide adequate bundobust. Along with the impugned order, a detailed map showing the topography of the streets was also enclosed and it is seen from the map that the procession was allowed to take through all the streets, except water tank public street.
11.Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the prohibition of taking procession through the water tank public street on the ground that the Christians in that street objected to the same, cannot be a ground for imposing such prohibitions. He further stated that the water tank street is a public street and not only the Christians, but also Hindus are residing in the same street and it is not a narrow as projected by the 3rd respondent and therefore, the prohibition on the ground that the Christians in that locality have objected to the same cannot be taken into consideration for imposing such restrictions.
12.Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, further contended that they are not interested in taking the procession upto the C.S.I. Church, which is situate on the eastern corner of the street and they will take the procession in the water tank public street upto a portion, where there is a road turning towards north and they must be permitted to take the procession through the water tank public street and turn towards north without quoting to the place where the Church is situate. He further submitted that the 2nd respondent having permitted the procession to take through all the streets where Christians are also residing, they should not pass such prohibitions, in respect of the water tank street alone.
13.The power of the 2nd respondent in imposing reasonable restrictions in the manner of taking procession or prohibiting the route through which the procession can be taken, is well settled in law. The petitioner can only challenge the restrictions on the ground that the restrictions imposed by the authorities are not reasonable or the authority has acted in a malafide manner or there is no basis for imposing such conditions.
14.In this case, in the impugned order, the 2nd respondent has stated that in a similar circumstances on 04.06.2008, even during peace talks were going on, 300 persons who not belong to that place forcefully took the temple procession through water tank street, for which permission was refused.
15.It was further stated that they also caused damages to the police van and a case has been registered against those persons. Further the police authorities have granted permission to the petitioner to take the deity in the procession through all the streets and in so far as the water tank public street is concerned, they apprehend that law and order problem may arise and only with an intention of maintaining the law and order problem, they have prohibited the taking of procession through the water tank public street.
16.Further, it is seen from the impugned order that even on 07.12.2008, there was an attempt to have a peace meeting and both parties were not prepared to come to an amicable solution and in that circumstances, they apprehended that if the procession is allowed to be taken through the water tank street, law and order problem would arise. In my opinion, having regard to the peculiar circumstances prevailing in that area, the action of the respondents in prohibiting the procession to be taken through the water tank public street cannot be considered as unreasonable and it cannot be stated that the 3rd respondent acted with the malafide intention while passing such an order.
17.Therefore, having regard to the totality of circumstances, in my view, the order of the 2nd respondent in imposing restrictions prohibiting the procession to be taken through the water tank street is justified and there is need to interfere with that order. However, it is open to the petitioner to approach the authorities concerned, in future if the situation improves and the respondents are also directed to grant permission according to the circumstances prevailing at that particular point of time.
18.With the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed. No costs.
er To,
1.The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari Sub Division, Kanyakumari.
3.J.R.Stalin Michael, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari Sub Division, Kanyakumari.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagercoil.