MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN W.P.No.30607 of 2025 and W.M.P.No.34299 of 2025 D.Thenmozhi W/o.A.Devendran, No.17/9, Prakasam Salai, Broadway

by Sekar Reporter · August 13, 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13.08.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
W.P.No.30607 of 2025 and W.M.P.No.34299 of 2025
D.Thenmozhi
W/o.A.Devendran,
No.17/9, Prakasam Salai, Broadway,
Chennai-600 108.
Petitioner
Vs
1.The Inspector of Police (Law & Order) G-2, Periamet Police Station, Periamet, Chennai-600 003.
2.Uzhaippor Urimai Iyakkam,
(Regn.No.3077 CNI),
Rep. by its President, K.Bharathi
Thozhar Koodam,
19 C Mariamman Koil Street, Kalyanapuram, Ambattur, Chennai-600 053.
Respondents
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus to implement the notice dated 07.08.2025 issued by the 1st respondent in terms of Section 41(6) of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888 (Tamil Nadu Act, 1888) by dispersing and clearing the agitators in the stretch of Pavement/Platform, Ripon Building, Chennai-600 003 whom the 2nd respondent is representing in public interest.
For Petitioner: Mr.V.Raghavachari Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Vinod
For Respondents: Mr.J.Ravindran
Addl. Advocate General assisted by Mr.Muniyapparaj Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1
Mr.R.Sankarasubbu for M/s.K.Bharathi D. Parvendhan S.Vasantharaman for respondent No.2
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by the Hon’ble Chief Justice)
The grievance raised in this petition is that, despite a notice issued on 7.8.2025 in proceedings under Section 41 of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888, the members of the second respondent/ Union, in the name of agitation, have occupied the pavement and
platform, causing serious inconvenience to the public.
2. Learned Additional Advocate General would inform the court that, after the notice is issued, the authorities shall take
appropriate action in accordance with law to ensure that pavements/pathways/roads, where such permission cannot be
granted to raise agitation, are vacated.
3. While the right of the second respondent to lodge peaceful protest cannot be denied, the second respondent is also obliged to ensure that the agitation is peaceful and without violating the laws
of the land.
4. We hope and expect that in the name of agitation, the pavements/pathways/roads shall not be allowed to be blocked. The authorities shall also ensure that if the second respondent applies for a space to peacefully organise protest in accordance with the provisions of law, the same shall be examined and appropriate order shall be passed so as to ensure that second respondent may be allowed to exercise its right of peaceful protest and agitation and, at the same time, pavements/pathways/roads, where such
protest is not permissible, are not allowed to be occupied.
5. We may further observe here that all restraint shall be exercised by the law enforcing agency while ensuring that the pavements/pathways/roads are not allowed for organising and
staging protest.
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no
order as to costs. Consequently, interim application stands closed.
(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ) (SUNDER MOHAN,J)
13.08.2025
Index : Yes Neutral Citation : Yes
sasi
To:
The Inspector of Police (Law & Order) G-2, Periamet Police Station, Periamet, Chennai-600 003.
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND SUNDER MOHAN,J.
(sasi)