HC-NIC C/WPPIL/191/2015 ORDER 11. On the aspect of minimal damage, it does appear that competent authority had taken care, namely, of blocking the of internet facility only on mobile phones and not on broadband facility. The attempt made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to contend that only social media sites could be blocked and not complete blockage of the internet access through mobiles, in our view, cannot be countenanced for two reasons; one is that normally, it should be left to the authority to find out its own mechanism for controlling the situation and the second is that there are number of social media sites which may not be required to be blocked independently or completely. But if internet access through mobiles is blocked by issuing directions to the mobile companies, such may possibly be more effective approach found by the competent authority. In any case, it was not complete ban on the internet access, but in comparison to the access available to internet through mobile, the same was only prohibited, whereas access to internet through broadband and wi-fi facility was permitted or rather was not blocked. 12. Under the circumstances, we are not impressed by the contention that the authorities were not conscious nor were they completely ignorant of the aspect of minimal restriction. Further, as observed earlier, each of the situations in exercise of the power under Section 144 of the Code may differ. Had there been complete ban on internet access, may be through Page 11 of 15 Page 11 of 15 Created On Thu Sep 17 08:11:45 IST 2015