Madras High Court allows ex-AIADMK functionary to celebrate Jaya's birthday in Kovai

Chennai: Pulling up the Coimbatore police for refusing to receive a representation, the Madras High Court has directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Periyanaickenpalayam, Coimbatore, to grant permission to an expelled AIADMK party functionary to conduct the event of the celebration of the 70th birth anniversary of the former chief minister late J. Jayalalithaa and to erect 50 flex banners on February 24.

Allowing a petition from G. Anandan, Justice M.S. Ramesh, who gave the direction said such flex banners shall be erected subject to the condition that it does not violate the provisions of Tamil Nadu Open Places (Regulation of pasting of posters and fixing of Thatty Boards) Rules, 1995. It is open to the DSP to impose reasonable restrictions while granting permission for the function, the judge added.

Petitioner contended that when he had submitted the representation to the police on January 24 seeking permission for the function, they refused to receive the same either in person or through the post.

Additional government pleader D. Raja submitted that the petitioner had not gotten permission from the appropriate authorities and that if he was permitted to erect flex banners in 110 places, it would cause hindrance to the public and day-to-day affairs also in the locality.

Pointing out that the conduct of the peaceful meeting or a public function was a fundamental right, subject to reasonable restrictions, the judge said so long as the petitioner seeks permission to conduct of a peaceful meeting and public function, the police may not be justified in refusing to receive the petitioner’s representation.

However, the police can refuse to grant permission after receiving the same, if such conduct of the meeting may cause inconvenience to the public.

The inspector of police will not be justified, at any point in time, in refusing to receive the said representation sent through posts.

Such conduct would amount to dereliction of the ordinary duties of their office.
“I am constrained to observe that it was not appropriate on the part of the police officer to refuse to receive the postal cover”, the judge added.