WP(MD) No. 25180 of 2025 __________ Page1 of 5 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL W.P.(MD) No. 25180 of 2025 M/s. R.P Balakrishnan Paint Shop, Represented by its Manager, D.Kingsley Prabhahar, No.136, Pandiya Vellalar Street, Madurai-625 001. ..Petitioner Vs 1. The District Collector Madurai District, Madurai. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai. ..Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents herein to take appropriate action and prohibit any public meetings at Pandiya Vellalar Street, near D.M.Court Junction or in the nearby areas in the future and protect the welfare of the general public, traders and devotees on the basis of the representation dated 23.04.2025 sent to the 1st and 2nd respondents herein. For Petitioner : Mr,Xavier Deva Sahayam for M/s APN Law Associates For R1 : For R2 : Mr.M.P.Senthil Counsel for State of Tamil Nadu Mr.P.Vetrivel Government Advocate (Crl.side) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD) No. 25180 of 2025 __________ Page2 of 5 ORDER (Order of the Court was made by C.V.Karthikeyan J.) The Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a Mandamus directing against the third respondent/District Collector, Madurai and the Commissioner of Police, Madurai to prohibit public meetings at Pandiya Vellalar Street, near D.M.Court Junction or nearby areas. 2.The Writ Petition had been opposed by the respondents on the ground that the Writ Petitioner himself is a trader in the very same street and therefore, the Writ Petition cannot be termed as a public interest litigation. It is purely a private interest litigation to safeguard the interest of the petitioner herein. It is on this ground itself, the Writ Petition requires to be dismissed. Even otherwise, we examine the case on merits. 3.We had called for a report from the Commissioner of Police, Madurai. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai, Madurai City had forwarded a counter, wherein, he had very specifically stated that the said place is one of the notified places, where meetings could be permitted with reasonable restrictions. It had been further stated as follows: “6.It is further submitted that the petitioner's assertion that his representation was "neither considered nor rejected" is therefore incorrect and misleading. The enquiry was duly closed after proper hearing, having already been dealt with earlier vide C.No.390/PG/Camp/DCP-South/MC/2025. Subsequently, the District https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD) No. 25180 of 2025 __________ Page3 of 5 Collector, Madurai, by proceedings in Na.Ka.No.C3/2952950/2025 dated 24.07.2025, formally reaffirmed and notified D.M. Court Junction as one of the designated venues for public meetings in Madurai District. Accordingly, the petitioner, having been personally heard and informed of the decision, is estopped from contending that his representation was left unattended or not disposed of. 7.It is is respectfully submitted that the present administrative arrangement arises directly from the binding directions of this Hon'ble Court in W.A.No. 1042 of 2018, dated 03.09.2018, wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench categorically held that while citizens have a fundamental right to peaceful assembly under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b), such right cannot be exercised at any place and time of their choosing, and the State is empowered to designate specific venues for demonstrations, processions and public meetings so as to avoid undue inconvenience to the general public. ....... 11.It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner's allegation that public meetings are being conducted "frequently" at the D.M. Court Junction causing continuous disturbance is wholly misconceived and exaggerated. The police records maintained in C.No. R5/490/21182/2025 and the event register reveal that during the period from January 2025 to September 2025, only seven (7) meetings were permitted at the said venue. Each of these meetings was of short duration two to three hours, held only in the evening hours, and never extended throughout the day. The gatherings were modest, with attendance ranging between 100 and 1000 persons, and were never of a magnitude that could disrupt or paralyze normal civic life.” 4.We are confident that the second respondent/Commissioner of Police would ensure that the meetings, when permitted to be conducted, are being held with reasonable restrictions and adherence to the conditions imposed while granting permission for such meetings. No further directions are required and the Writ Petition, as stated, is purely filed in private interest. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD) No. 25180 of 2025 __________ Page4 of 5 5.Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. (C.V.K.,J.) (R.S.V.,J.) 23-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No cmr To 1. The District Collector Madurai District, Madurai. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD) No. 25180 of 2025 __________ Page5 of 5 C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J. AND R.SAKTHIVEL, J. cmr W.P(MD) No. 25180 of 2025 23-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis