AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Basant, J.—Petitioners are students of an Engineering College. They have come to this Court with this petition claiming police protection for the orderly and peaceful conduct of Tech Fest by name AADIKARA, said to be a cultural festival to be conducted today, tomorrow and day after tomorrow at the Aban Auditorium, Pathanamthitta.
According to the Petitioners, they have filed this petition on 31.03.2011 after making all arrangements for the conduct of the Tech Fest. They pray that police protection may be afforded to them for the conduct of the Tech Fest. Principal of the college, the 5th Respondent, admittedly had issued Ext.P6 communication to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pathanamthitta, expressing the apprehension that the conduct of the Tech Fest may lead to law and order problems. Thereafter the Circle Inspector of Police had issued Ext.P5 letter to the manager of the auditorium cautioning him of the the possibility of a law and order situation and instructing him not to give the auditorium for the conduct of the festival.
According to the Petitioners, their fundamental rights to hold meeting and to organize the Tech Fest has been offended by the conduct of the police officials. It is, in these circumstances, that the Petitioners have come to this Court with this petition for protection under Article 226 of the Constitution to Respondents 1 to 4. The Principal of the college, who issued Ext.P6, has been arrayed as the 5th Respondent.
The 5th Respondent has entered appearance through a counsel. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Principal stands by Ext.P6, but has no objection in the Tech Fest being conducted elsewhere, i.e. outside the college. The learned Government Pleader on behalf of Respondents 1 to 4 submits that there have been crimes registered earlier. There are conflicts between 3 groups of students. In one of the earlier incidents, a person had suffered injuries and he is even now in the hospital. Peaceful conduct of the festival will be impossible. Police men are deputed for duty in connection with the elections and it would be virtually impossible for the police to afford protection to the Petitioners. In these circumstances, no police protection may be ordered, submits the learned Government Pleader. As perceived by the Principal of the College and as perceived by the police officials, the conduct of the Tech Fest is likely to result in law and order situation and, in these circumstances, police protection may not be ordered as the police, on account of inadequate personnel, will not be able to enforce law and order and comply with specific directions of the Court. The learned Government Pleader submits that on receipt of the report of the Principal, i.e. Ext.P6, necessary action has already been taken to ensure that there is no law and order situation.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioners at this juncture chooses to alter his prayer. The learned Counsel submits that the Petitioners are willing to withdraw the prayer for police protection. The learned Counsel prays that Ext.P5 order may be set aside.
The learned Government Pleader opposes the prayer. The learned Government Pleader submits that if any directions for the conduct of the Tech Fest in favour of the Petitioners are issued by this Court, that is likely to result in law and order situation and violence among groups of students.
We have considered all the relevant inputs. We are not, at any rate, persuaded to direct Respondents 2 to 4 to afford police protection for the conduct of the Tech Fest. We take note of the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the police will not be able to afford protection for the Tech Fest to be conducted today, tomorrow and day after tomorrow considering the exigencies in connection with the election.
We are satisfied that no directions for grant of police protection can, need or deserve to be issued. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners has himself chosen not to press that prayer.
All that remains is whether Ext.P5 order deserves to be set aside. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners has placed reliance on the decision in Om Kumar v. Union of India (2001) 2 SCC 386 to contend that that the Petitioners have the right to hold meeting in an orderly and peaceful manner. The learned Counsel has relied on other precedents also. We are not persuaded to agree that any directions need be issued against Ext.P5. The willingness of the manager of the Aban Tower to afford the auditorium for the Petitioners in the light of the dispute that have been brought to their notice has not been ascertained. The manager has not arrayed as a party. In these circumstances, without and before ascertaining the willingness of the manager of the Aban Auditorium to offer the same to the Petitioners for the conduct of the Tech Fest, we are not persuaded to invoke our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to interfere with Ext.P5 order. We take note of the totality of the circumstances. We take note of the version of the Principal about the situation reflected in Ext.P6. We take note of the perception of the police officials as communicated by the learned Government Pleader.
This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed.