S/L 10 23.12.2025 Court. No. 25 sourav WPA 29500 of 2025 Rajesh Jana Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharyya, Sr. Adv. Ms. Megha Dutta … for the petitioner. Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, Sr. Standing Counsel Mr. Vivekananda Bose Mr. Akash Dutta … for the State. 1. The affidavit-of-service filed by the petitioner is taken on record. 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ application praying for a direction upon the respondent no. 2, i.e., the Sub- Divisional Officer, Kakdwip, District – South 24 Parganas to allow the petitioner and its organization to use the microphones and speakers during holding the meeting which is scheduled to be held on 24.12.2025 from 12.00 hours to 18.00 hours at Sagar, Rudranagar, Dag No. 4277, Khatian No. 1993, Police Station – Sagar, District – South 24 Parganas. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner intends to hold the meeting in the private property and the person who is the owner of the property has already given No Objection for holding the meeting. He submits that on 17.12.2025 by way of email, the petitioner had applied before the SDO for grant of permission, but till date the permission has not been granted. 2 4. The petitioner has relied upon Section 34A of the Police Act, 1861 and submits that it is the power of the Magistrate of the District or any Sub-Divisional Magistrate or Magistrate of the First Class, it is necessary to do so for the purpose of preventing annoyance to, or injury to the health of the public or any section thereof or for the purpose of maintaining public peace and tranquility, he may by order prohibit, restrict, regulate or impose conditions on the use or operation in any area within his jurisdiction or in any vehicle within such area of microphones, loudspeakers or other apparatus for amplifying human voice or for amplifying music or other sounds. 5. He has further relied upon the judgment in the case of Himat Lal K. Shah Vs. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad & Anr. reported in 1973 (1) SCC 227 and submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the right to hold public meeting under Article 19(1)(b) and 19(1)(d) it is obvious that the State cannot impose unreasonable restriction, it must be kept in mind that Article 19(1)(b) read with Section 13 protects citizen against the State action. It is nothing to do with the right to assemble on private street or property without consent of the owner or occupiers of the private property. He submits that in the present case the petitioner has applied for the permission to hold the meeting in the private land and the owner of the property has already given no objection to conduct the meeting. 6. Per contra, Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay, learned senior counsel appearing for the State has raised the preliminary 3 objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ application. He submits that if the contents of the writ petition along with prayer is read together, the writ petition is not maintainable before this Court as this Court is not having the determination to pass any order for inaction or non-action on the part of the police authority. 7. He further submits that the petitioner has applied for grant of permission on 17.12.2025 at 22.32 hours and immediately, on 22.12.2025, the petitioner has filed the present writ application without giving time to the respondents to consider the request made by the petitioner for grant of permission to the petitioner for holding the meeting. 8. In Prayer (b) of the writ application, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondent no. 2, who is the Sub-Divisional Officer. In Prayer C, the petitioner has prayed for an order for directing the authority to ensure that no hindrance or interference is caused. 9. The contention of Mr. Bandopadhyay, is that if the Prayer (c) is to be taken into consideration, the police authority has to ensure any hindrance or interference when the petitioner will conduct the meeting and as such, Prayer (c) is connected with police authority. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 11. This Court finds that the petitioner has made an application on 17.12.2025 at 22.32 hours through mail and subsequently, on 18.12.2025 at 22.30 hours but the authorities have not passed any order either by rejecting or allowing the prayer of the. Prayer (b) is for the direction 4 upon the Sub-Divisional Officer to grant permission to the petitioner for holding the meeting on 24.12.2025 from 12.00 hours to 18.00 hours. It is the respondent no. 2, i.e., the Sub-Divisional Officer to consider the application of the petitioner whether the petitioner is entitled to get the permission for holding the meeting or not. 12. The respondent no. 2 is the authority for grant of permission which is within the determination of this Court. Accordingly, this Court disposed of the writ application directing the respondent no. 2 to consider the application filed by the petitioner on 17.12.2025 and 18.12.2025and take appropriate decision and to communicate the same to the petitioner on or before 10.00 p.m. on 23.12.2025 by email which the petitioner has mentioned in the application dated 17.12.2025. 13. Accordingly, WPA 29500 of 2025 is disposed of. 14. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all the necessary formalities. (Krishna Rao, J.)