AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arindam Sinha, J
This writ petition is treated as on day's list.
Impugned in this writ petition is memo dated 4th December, 2019. The memo was issued by State through office of Commissioner of Police, Kolkata, in response to, particularly, two letters dated 20th September, 2019 and 22nd October, 2019, written by Centre of Indian Trade Unions, seeking permission to hold mass meetings at Chitta Ranjan Avenue-Bentick Street junction and Rani Rashmoni Avenue in the city on 11th December, 2019. The police have granted permission to hold meeting at latter venue. Petitioners are aggrieved. They complain of discrimination.
Mr. Kar, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of petitioners and draws attention to paragraphs 11 and 18 of the writ petition. Relevant statements relied upon are extracted below:-
"11...............Inasmuch as the Kolkata Police not only permits organization of political programs of organizations having allegiance to the ruling political party in front of Victoria House but also makes detailed arrangement of traffic diversion plans in aid of the said program. In fact such program is organized every year and permission is accorded every year.
18............... Inasmuch as the program of the ruling political party held on July 21 every year, fell on weekdays in respect of the years 2017 (Friday), 2016 (Thursday, 2015 (Tuesday), 2014 (Monday) etc. On each and every occasion, the police authorities granted permission to the organizations of the ruling political party to organize meeting after making detailed traffic diversion plans. Therefore, purported ground relating to vehicular movement on weekday raised by the respondent police is a deliberate attempt on the part of the authorities to illegally restrain the petitioner organization and other trade unions from holding their program in front of Victoria House. Such conduct indicates mala fide on part of the respondent authorities."
He relies on judgments of Supreme Court, firstly, on Himat Lal K Shah vs. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad reported in (1973) SCC 227, inter alia, paragraphs 72 to 74. Secondly, on Mazdoor Krishan Shakti Sanghatan vs. Union of India reported in AIR 2018 SC 3476, inter alia, paragraph 63. He submits, there should be interference in directing the police to allow the meeting at Chittaranjan Avenue-Bentick Street junction. He has instruction to submit, meeting also to be held at Rani Rashmoni Avenue, will not be held.
Mr. Bandyopadhyay, learned advocate appears on behalf of State and submits, the police have considered the matter and passed a reasoned decision. There should not be interference. Mr. Banerjee, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of Kolkata Municipal Corporation and submits, on first police permission required is granted, his client will take a decision on petitioners wanting to erect a stage for proposed meeting at Chitta Ranjan Avenue-Bentick Street junction.
This Court has ascertained from petitioners that they applied in terms of rules framed under relevant statute. There is no challenge in this writ petition to either any provision in the statute (Police Act) or rules framed thereunder. It appears, petitioners want to hold their meeting at Chitta Ranjan Avenue-Bentick Street junction instead of Rani Rashmoni Avenue. They cannot be discriminated against because meetings are allowed by the police at the venue and they have, in allowing such meetings, made arrangements for the city to not be disrupted by such meetings.
In Himat Lal (supra), there were three concurring views. Relied upon paragraphs are from concurring view of one learned Judge. The learned Judge, in the paragraphs, gave reasons for allowing the appeal, to say that a rule like rule 7 framed by Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad under Bombay Police Act, 1951, which gives an unguided discretion practically dependent upon the subjective whims of an authority to grant or refuse permission to hold a meeting on public street, cannot be held to be valid. There is no challenge here to any rule or statutory provision. In Mazdoor Krishan Shakti Sangathan (supra), Supreme Court found facts to be that residents of the locality had approached National Green Tribunal (NGT) on inconvenience caused by the Administration allowing meetings and rallies to be held at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi. NGT, on adversarial approach to it, went by ground realities and the pathetic situation faced by the residents because of such demonstrations. Supreme Court found that analysis of NGT is without blemish but the solution was not barring the demonstration altogether. Instead, NGT would have directed the authorities to adopt such measures, indicated in the judgment, so that there is balance of rights of both sections of the society. This decision does not appear to come to aid of petitioners since the Administration has granted permission to hold meeting, at one of two venues asked for by them.
Court has perused impugned memo. Petitioners themselves appear to have made clear to the authorities that in choosing two proximate venues of meetings on same day at times of meeting at Chittaranjan Avenue-Bentick Street junction to be from noon to 4 P.M. and the other from 10.30 to 4.30 P.M, there is indication of, in addition to the meetings, procession from one venue to the other. This must have been consideration for the police to have issued impugned memo. Court does not find any unreasonableness on the part of the police in having acted as they did on petitioners' requests. More so because now petitioners grievance seems to be that they would rather hold meeting at the other venue, than the one, for which permission has been granted. Court does not have reason to interfere.
This writ petition is found to be without merit and same is dismissed.