- (1.) THIS petition is moved by two practicing advocates seeking a writ of mandamus for declaring Proceedings dated 03 -09 -2013 of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Zone, Hyderabad (henceforth referred to as 'the DCP'), granting permission to the 4th respondent - The Andhra Pradesh Non -Gazetted Officers' Association - to hold public meeting on 07 -09 -2013 at Lal Bahadur Stadium, Bhasheer Bagh, Hyderabad, as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, without jurisdiction and contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (for short 'the Rules) and violative of the fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(d) & (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners are also public spirited individuals.
(2.) THE Working Committee of the Indian National Congress Party met on 30 -07 - 2013 and decided to request the Government of India to take steps for formation of a separate State of Telangana with a view to fulfill the longstanding demand of large sections of the people of Telangana region, their social, economic, political and other aspirations. The Government of India is yet to take a decision in that regard. But however, the 4th respondent appears to have filed an application on 20 -08 -2013 before the DCP requesting to grant necessary permission to conduct a meeting on 07 -09 -2013 from 11 -00 am onwards at Lal Bahadur Stadium, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad, to keep the State of Andhra Pradesh united. It is proposed for the said meeting to draw employees from different fields to raise their voice regarding united Andhra Pradesh. Conceding to this request, the DCP accorded the necessary permission through his Order dated 03 -09 -2013 for conducting "Employees Meeting" at Lal Bahadur Stadium, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad, on 07 -09 - 2013 from 2 -00 pm to 5 -00 pm, subject to the 19 conditions specified thereunder. It is this Order which gave raise to the present writ petition. Heard Sri G. Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Janaki Ram Reddy the learned Government Pleader for Home, who accepted notice on behalf of respondents 1, 2 and 3.
(3.) IT is contended by Sri Mohan Rao that the 4th respondent Association, apprehending division of the State, is resorting to illegal activities at the behest of some powerful politicians and it has already resorted to illegal strike from 12 -08 -2013, literally paralyzing the public administration in Seemaandhra region. Sri Mohan Rao would further contend that the actions and conduct of the 4th respondent are in direct contravention of Rules 4, 5, 17 and 19 of the Conduct Rules. It is also contended by Sri Mohan Rao that holding a public meeting amounts to conducting a political meeting and has nothing to do with the conditions of service of its members. The learned counsel would urge that the meeting is, essentially, convened for criticizing a political decision taken by a political party, which has received all -round approval from all other political parties in the State, if not the entire country. Without, in any manner, examining the true intent behind convening such a meeting by the 4th respondent, the 3rd respondent has granted permission in a mechanical manner without seriously applying his mind to various other sensitive issues relating thereto. Sri Mohan Rao would submit that a meeting of this nature will shatter the peace and tranquility of the city and is likely to lead to a breakdown of law and order situation. Therefore, the 3rd respondent should not have granted the permission to such a disguised meeting convened by the 4th respondent. From the permission accorded to the 4th respondent and while simultaneously not according any such permission to any other peace -rally or congregation intended to commemorate the sacrifices that were made on 07 -09 -1952, the lack of impartiality on the part of respondents 1, 2 and 3, is deducible.;