HC-NIC C/WPPIL/191/2015 ORDER What will be the situation in future and what will be the degree of the disturbance of the law and order or what will be the quantum and number of rioting etc. in a given situation cannot be visualized on the ground as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. At this stage, all these questions can only be said to be in the field of hypothesis and surmises. We do not see that the basis or the demonstration of reasonable apprehension as sought to be canvassed is sufficient at this stage for us to intervene even before the power is exercised. We only find it appropriate to observe that the competent authority will only exercise power within the limits of law on the basis of the objective material and shall not exercise power in arbitrary manner or in perverse manner without there being any appropriate objective material. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on decision in Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of India [AIR 1978 SC 597] to submit that the Apex Court held in that case that violation of fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution could also travel into the realm of violation of other fundamental rights like Articles 21 and 14 and that principle of trinity vis-a-vis enforcement of all the three fundamental rights was propounded by the Court. In respect of the contention that powers under Section 144 of the Code could not have been resorted to, the reliance was made upon the decision of Bombay High Court In re Ardeshir Phirozshaw Murzban Page 13 of 15 Page 13 of 15 Created On Thu Sep 17 08:11:45 IST 2015