@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
V. Ramasubramanian, J.@mdashThe petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, challenging an order rejecting their request to take out a procession for the purpose of opening the branch offices of the petitioner association, for hoisting flag of the association and for conducting a public meeting.
2. Heard Mr. C. Prakasam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. A. Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents.
3. The petitioner is an association of persons belonging to a particular community. It is registered under the Tamilnadu Societies Registration Act. They made a representation on 10.10.2014 for taking out a procession, hoisting the flags, opening branch offices and for holding a public meeting on 30.11.2014. The same has been rejected by the eighth respondent, forcing the petitioner to come up with the above writ petition.
4. The objection of the eighth respondent to the request of the petitioner is primarily two fold namely (a) that the petitioner failed to furnish the details called for; and (b) that granting permission to the petitioner will lead to communal tension.
5. In so far as the first objection is concerned, it is the claim of the eighth respondent that he wanted information about the number of vehicles that the petitioner proposes to use and the number of persons, who may participate. The petitioner has no difficulty in furnishing these details. According to the petitioner, about 100 persons will participate in a rally to be taken out on two wheelers. They want to take out a rally just for the purpose of opening the branch offices and hoisting flags in rented premises. They also want to hold a public meeting in a place absolutely belonging to them and not in a public property. Therefore, the first objection of the eight respondent cannot be sustained.
6. In so far as the second objection is concerned, the objection of the eighth respondent is based on presumptions. Anticipated danger has been V. Ramasubramanian, J. RS held by a Division Bench of this Court in C.J. Rajan, Organiser, Peoples Watch, Madurai Vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mayiladuthurai [2008 (3) MLJ 926], not to be a ground for curtailing the fundamental rights of citizens.
7. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to furnish the details called for by the eight respondent. Upon the petitioner furnishing the details, the eight respondent shall grant permission to the petitioner. No costs. Consequently, the above MP is closed.
