HC-NIC C/WPPIL/191/2015 ORDER law. But as per the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the absence thereof, the Court may not proceed on the basis that restriction of fundamental right was valid in law. As regards the apprehended action on the part of the respondent-State and its officials, it was submitted that even if there is no actual breach of fundamental right, but if there is imminent danger or apprehension, the Court may entertain the challenge to the apprehended action also and therefore, the petition may not be termed as on hypothesis or surmises. It was submitted that therefore, this Court may interfere. The learned counsel relied upon various decisions of the Apex Court, however, we think it appropriate to refer to those only which as per our view are relevant for considering the controversy. 4. On behalf of the respondent-State and its officials, Ms. Manisha L. Shah, the learned Government Pleader, by relying upon the voluminous material contended that there was sufficient valid ground for exercise of power under Section 144 of the Code. It was submitted that had the powers not been exercised under Section 144 for blockage of internet facility on mobile phones, possibly, peace could not have been restored with the other efforts made by the State for maintenance of the law and order. She submitted that the petitioner is not having all the details for exercise of power and the ground raised that notification for blocking of internet facility on mobile phones from 25th August 2015 onwards was without there being any Page 4 of 15 Page 4 of 15 Created On Thu Sep 17 08:11:45 IST 2015