Aby Sam, Bala Murali Mohan & Sreenath R. v. State of Kerala and Others

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Hon. Justice R. Basant
Hon. Justice K. Surendra Mohan
Judgment Date: 2011-04-04
Court Decision / Holding: This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Aby Sam
Bala Murali Mohan
Sreenath R.

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by its Secretary, Department of Home, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
The Superintendent of Police, Pathanamthitta
The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pathanamthitta
The Circle Inspector of Police, Pathanamthitta Police Station
The Principal, Mount Zion College of Engineering, Kadammanitta, Pathanamthitta

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri M. T. Sureshkumar
• Sri V. V. Raja

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri T. K. Vipindas
• Sri T. S. John
• Sri Jestin Mathew

Case Synopsis & Summary

Three engineering students of Mount Zion College, Aby Sam, Bala Murali Mohan, and Sreenath R., approached the Kerala High Court for police protection to conduct the Tech Fest named Aadikara at the Aban Auditorium in Pathanamthitta. They had arranged the event from 4 to 6 April 2011 and sought protection to ensure orderly, peaceful proceedings, invoking their fundamental right to assemble under Article 19(1)(a) and to hold meetings under Article 19(1)(b). The Principal of the college (5th respondent) by Ext. P6 expressed apprehensions about possible law-and-order problems, and the Circle Inspector, via Ext. P5, cautioned the auditorium manager that disturbances might occur and instructed not to lend the venue for the festival. The petition contends that their rights are being infringed and seeks protection under Article 226. During hearing, the petitioners’ counsel indicated a willingness to relocate the event and withdraw police-protection prayer, while the Principal did not object to relocation. The Government Pleader argued that election duties would stretch police resources and that the chances of disorder were real. The court, after considering the material, declined to direct police protection and did not interfere with Ext. P5, noting the manager’s unascertained willingness to host the festival and the electoral context. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argued that they sought police protection to conduct the Tech Fest at Aban Auditorium to ensure orderly, peaceful proceedings and to safeguard rights to assemble. The Principal supported Ext. P6 but did not object to holding the event at a different venue, suggesting relocation. They maintained that protection was necessary to avert potential law-and-order problems and to comply with court directions. When counsel indicated willingness to withdraw the protection prayer, the petitioners pressed for setting aside Ext. P5 only and argued for safeguarding their right to assemble under constitutional guarantees.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that prior crimes and inter-group tensions existed among students, and that the election-related deployments would hinder the police from providing protection. They contended Ext. P5 reflected the likelihood of disturbance and urged against granting police protection or interfering with Ext. P5. The Government Pleader emphasized that the police would be stretched thin and unable to guarantee order during the festival.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Om Kumar v. Union of India	(2001) 2 SCC 386	Mentioned Only	Cited to discuss the notion of the right to hold meetings peacefully, but the court did not rely on it to grant relief and dismissed the petition.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT :** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT** **& THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN** **MONDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2011 / 14TH CHAITHRA 1933** **WP(C).No. 10466 of 2011(G)** **----------------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** - **------------------------** **1. ABY SAM, S/O.SAM ABRAHAM, 4TH YEAR, ELECTRONICS AND COMMUNICATION ENGINEERING, MOUNT ZION COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KADAMMANITTA, PATHANAMTHITTA, (EBANEZEER HOUSE, KULAKKADU P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM.).** **2. BALA MURALI MOHAN, S/O.MOHANAN NAIR, 4TH YEAR, ELECTRONICS AND COMMUNICATION ENGINEERING MOUNT ZION COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KADAMMANITTA, PATHANAMTHITTA, (MOHANALAYAM, PERUMALA P.O., THIRUVALLA).** **3. SREENATH R., S/O.REGHUNADHAN NAIR, 4TH YEAR, ELECTRONICS AND COMMUNICATION ENGINEERING MOUNT ZION COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KADAMMANITTA, PATHANAMTHITTA, (SREENADHAM, MELUKARA P.O., KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA).** **BY ADV. SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR, SRI.V.V.RAJA.** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** ## **--------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 649.** **3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 649.** **WP(C).No. 10466 of 2011(G)** **4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION, 689 649.** ## **5. THE PRINCIPAL,** **MOUNT ZION COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KADAMMANITTA, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 649.** **R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.T.K. VIPINDAS. R5 BY ADV. SRI.T.S.JOHN, SRI.JESTIN MATHEW.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **rs** ## **WP(C).No. 10466 of 2011(G)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXT.P1: COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE TECH FEST PUBLISHED WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT AND PRINCIPAL OF THE COLLEGE ON 22/02/2011.** **EXT.P2: COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED BY THE PRINCIPAL ON 11/03/2011.** **EXT.P3: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED ON PAYMENT OF ADVANCE ON 23/03/2011.** **EXT.P3(a): COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 23/03/2011.** **EXT.P4: COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE PROGRAM SCHEDULED TO BE HELD FROM 04/04/2011 TO 06/04/2011.** **EXT.P5: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED NIL.** **EXT.P6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 29/03/2011.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **rs** ## **R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ************************* ## **W.P(C) No.10466 of 2011-G ******************************* Dated this the 4[th] day of April, 2011 ## **JUDGMENT** ## 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. 2. 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 5[th] 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. **W.P(C) No.10466 of 2011-G** 2 3. According to the petitioners, their fundamental rights to hold meeting and to organise 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 5[th] respondent. 4. The 5[th] 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, ie. 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 **W.P(C) No.10466 of 2011-G** 3 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, ie. Ext.P6, necessary action has already been taken to ensure that there is no law and order situation. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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 **W.P(C) No.10466 of 2011-G** 4 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. 8. 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. 9. 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 5 ## **W.P(C) No.10466 of 2011-G** 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. 10. This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. **(R.BASANT, JUDGE)** **(K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE)** rtr/