Judgment :- The prayer in the writ petition is for the issue of mandamus to the respondents directing them to (1) disclose to this Court the names of the drivers and conductors of the PTC buses who have abandoned their buses and blocked the traffic on the roads on 11.7.1989 near Gajendra Hotel and LIC building, Mount road, Madras-2, on 30.7.1989 near Tambaram on the GHT Road, on 31.7.1989 on Poonamallee High Road, Near Ega Theatre Junction, on 10.8.1989 at Millers Road, Kilpauk, Madras-10 at about 6.00 p.m. and on the same day at about 8.00 p.m. near Doveton Corner, Vepery, Madras and to disclose as to what disciplinary action the respondents have taken against the erring crew with regard to the above 5 incidents. (2) If no action has been taken for punishing the crew like cancelling their driving licence or imposing fine, suspension or dismissal etc., so far with regard to the above 5 instances, to take immediate disciplinary action against the erring PTC crew within a time that may be fixed by this Court, and (3) to spell out what action the respondents are going to take in future for prevention of the repetition of the abandoning of the vehicles by the PTC crew on the roads. The petitioner is a member of several social welfare organisations. He has been writing his views on various topics of interest both political and civic problems in The Hindu, The Indian Express and other newspapers in the Letters to the Editor columns and the view expressed by him are appreciated by the general public. The present writ petition is filed as a public Interest litigation in view of growing lawlessness among the PTC crew members holding the public to ransom. The Chairman of the second respondent is the officer holding the office of Director General of Police. The need for the highest police official to be the Chairman of P.T.C. is to ensure that the special training undergone by him as police officer can be utilised for crime detection and maintenance of law and order. The petitioner has addressed meetings giving several suggestions for the improved performance of the P.T.C. (now Madras Metropolitan Transport Corporation) and other bus services in the mofussil. One of his suggestions has been that the law must be made applicable equally to all citizens including the State Transport crew. The petitioner has addressed meetings giving several suggestions for the improved performance of the P.T.C. (now Madras Metropolitan Transport Corporation) and other bus services in the mofussil. One of his suggestions has been that the law must be made applicable equally to all citizens including the State Transport crew. There have been several instances when P.T.C buses were allowed to go through one way traffic streets in spite of such regulations for the flimsy reasons of conservation of diesel, etc., when ordinary citizens get to be prosecuted for violating one way rule. The petitioner has informed that such one way restrictions are equally applicable to State Transport Buses also. 2. It has become a shameful habit for the State Transport crew to abandon their buses in a haphazard manner in the middle of the roads whenever some trouble arise invariably between a commuter and a crew member. In spite of their blocking the traffic by abandoning the vehicles sometimes for several hours and causing untold inconvenience and difficulties to every passenger on the road, the respondents have not taken any disciplinary action against them and in any event the public have not been informed about the disciplinary action taken against the erring crew by the respondents. There have been several instances of the lawless attitude of the bus crew. On 11.7.1989 the then P.T.C. bus crew abandoned their vehicles on the roads on the ground that one of the P.T.C. crew picked up a quarrel with the employees of Gajendra Hotel at Mount Road, near LIC building and assaulted. This was published as news item in the front page of the Indian Express in its issue dated 12.7.1989. On 30.7.1989 at Tambaram there was an altercation between the then PTC crew and Tiruporur M.L.A. Dr. Thirumoorthys supporters resulting in police using mild force and there was a traffic hold-up along with GST road for several hours as the then PTC crew joined TPTC crew. This was also reported in the newspapers. On 31st July 1989 on Poonomallee High road the then PTC busmen held the junction near Ega Theatre because a conductor on route 15 was stabbed by a young man when he was asked to purchase a ticket. This was also reported in the newspapers. On 31st July 1989 on Poonomallee High road the then PTC busmen held the junction near Ega Theatre because a conductor on route 15 was stabbed by a young man when he was asked to purchase a ticket. On 10.8.1989 at Millers Road, Kilpauk P.T.C crew deserted buses demanding action against a passenger who had assaulted a colleague following an altercation on route 74 resulting in another traffic jam upto Ega Junction for two hours from 6 p.m. On the same day near Doveton Corner Vepery Madras around 8 p.m., a conductor was allegedly assaulted by a checking inspector of the same P.T.C resulting in abandoning the vehicles by the PTC crew then and thea along Purasawalkam High road. The petitioner had a meeting of Lions Club of Nungambakkam at Hotel Taj Coromandel of which he is a member and because of the traffic jam he could not reach the meeting in time. Several protests by the public against the unruly conduct and behaviour of the crew of the PTC have been going unheaded and due to the inaction of the respondents, the PTC crew member have started believing that they are above law and they can get away with whatever they want because of their might. On several occasions those things happened. The respondents have not made any note or the number of the buses for taking action against them and the only thing they have been doing is to meekly surrender to the arrogant and unlawful behaviour of the crew of PTC, persuade and beg to them to take back the vehicles assuring them that erring member will be dealt with according to law. People who have to reach the railway station, the airport and other places have been unable to reach in time and the pregnant ladies who have got to reach the nursing homes are prevented from reaching the destination. Apart from the above, whenever the buses are abandoned on the road, the passengers who have bought the tickets are mercilessly pulled down from the vehicles and made to walk miles and miles for reaching their destinations. Apart from the above, whenever the buses are abandoned on the road, the passengers who have bought the tickets are mercilessly pulled down from the vehicles and made to walk miles and miles for reaching their destinations. Such a sad state of affairs is continuing and all that one should do to paralyse the traffic on the main road is to just pick up a quarrel with the conductor which would ignite hundreds of buses getting abandoned on the roads without knowing the real reason and also not bothering to know as to who is responsible for such altercation. 3. Whatever may be the provocation, the charges and counter-charges by the crew and the public, they should be settled only with the person concerned according to law after due investigation. They cannot constitute a reason for the abandonment of the vehicles on the road. The crew members have exhibited on several occasions that they have no interest in discharging their duties as expected from a public servant. They are also confident that no action would be taken either by the Government or police or by the superior authorities against them. Several letters written by the writ petitioner and others have been published in various newspapers as also articles. The agony of the general public at the lawlessness of the PTC crew is unbearable. The explanation given by Mr. Koteeswaran, the then M.D. of the PTC regarding the conduct of the PTC crew is that most of them are not well educated and act on the spur of the movement. This explanation is not only irresponsible but offers a premium on lawlessness and also adds insult to injury. The public transport vehicles in the hands of such irresponsible crew would be a menace to the society and at this rate they may even mow down a group of people acting on emotions. 4. The PTC buses do not belong to them and they are not the owners. They cannot use them to express their anger or for ventilating their personal problems. The authorities should not treat the lawlessness by the PTC crew in such a light-hearted manner. They have turned a blind eye and deaf ear to the justifiable cry of the public. Such occurrences are likely to be repeated in future. They cannot use them to express their anger or for ventilating their personal problems. The authorities should not treat the lawlessness by the PTC crew in such a light-hearted manner. They have turned a blind eye and deaf ear to the justifiable cry of the public. Such occurrences are likely to be repeated in future. It is time the respondent took serious note of the deteriorating situation and tell the crew members that they are public servants entrusted with the costly buses and the lives of the citizens and they have no business to abandon their vehicle on the roads and whatever may be their grievances it shall be putforth in the proper places in proper manner. 5. As a citizen, the petitioner is entitled to know from the respondents as to what action they have taken against the erring crew members in the five instances already referred to and if they have not done anything so far what action they have proposed to take against the erring crew members and also as to what steps they are going to take to prevent such traffic hold-ups by PTC crew in future. As there is no efficacious remedy, the present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. The second respondent has filed a counter on the following lines; The allegations in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are untrue “prejudiced” against the Corporation. Necessary disciplinary action is being taken against the erring crew or any crew whenever any hardship is caused to the public due to crews mistake. Neither the petitioner nor the public can claim any right to know about the disciplinary action taken against the crew and the second respondent cannot be compelled to disclose such disciplinary action taken against those crews since it is purely a matter of management and administration by the second respondent in dealing with their crew. There was no lawlessness on the part of the crew in the incidence cited in paragrapah-6(a) of the affidavit. On 11.7.1989, the trouble erupted following a dispute between a PTC driver and the workers of the Gajendra Hotel over a bill. The PTC driver repeatedly refused to pay the bill saying that he was overcharged. A heated argument ensued followed by a clash. It was alleged that the drivers has been beaten by the hotel staff. On 11.7.1989, the trouble erupted following a dispute between a PTC driver and the workers of the Gajendra Hotel over a bill. The PTC driver repeatedly refused to pay the bill saying that he was overcharged. A heated argument ensued followed by a clash. It was alleged that the drivers has been beaten by the hotel staff. As words spread the drivers of the State Transport buses passing by stopped their vehicles stormed into the hotel and smashed up everything there. The news items reported in the newspapers had not stated that PTCs driver picked up quarrel with Gajendra Hotel staff. The writ petitioner ought to have verified the news item published in Indian Express dated 12.7.1989. He ought not to have made such unhealthy, unwanted wild allegations against the second respondent and its crew. 7. On 29.7.1989 two passengers claiming to be the relatives of Thiruporur M.L.A. had demanded and insisted that their dog should be allowed to travel along with them in the bus from Tambaram to Thaiyur and when the crew of the TPTC town bus refused to permit the dog to travel in the town bus, the two passengers allegedly roughed them up. It was further alleged that the crew of TPTC town bus were refused admission for their treatment at Chrompet Government Hospital. During the conciliatory talks on 30.7.1989. tension piled up and trouble arose, with the result the police used mild force to disperse the bus crew. In the said melee, some of the transport employees were also injured in the police action. Agitated by this, the employees of other transport corporations had joined the protest and abandoned their vehicles. Thus, it would be clear that in either of the two incidents the second respondents crew, that is the then PTCs crew were not at all involved and only when some of their colleagues were injured, out of sudden provocation and anguish they were left with no alternative other than to show their protest in the manner they did. It is not a concerted, pre - planned or pre-meditated plan or decision in resorting to abandonment of vehicles. It is not a concerted, pre - planned or pre-meditated plan or decision in resorting to abandonment of vehicles. Human psychology, behaviour pattern of the drivers out of sudden provocation knowing that one of their colleagues had either been assaulted or injured, they were put under severe psychological stress and lose their control due to emotional upset and in order to register their frustration, agony and out of anguish they abandon their vehicle, fearing that they would not be in a position to drive the vehicle safely in that atmosphere. In a way the drivers abandoning their vehicles at the circumstances is a common phenomenon and an occupational hazard practically reported to have occurred in every corner of the globe. 8. As regards the 3rd incident when the transport crew members were discharging their duties and functions, the commuters did not co - operate and several commuters intentionally did not purchase the fare tickets and when demanded to purchase fare tickets, the price that the conductor got from the public was a stabbed wound. The conductors were placed under severe-stress on account of the beligerent human behaviours, unruly mob and mass violent action by the commuters mingled with the “onslaughts” inflicted by the anti-social elements. Against heavy odds the crew members were trying to be cool and maintain a calm nature in discharging their duties as public servants. The reference to an incident near Ega theatre at Poonamallee Highroad on 31.7.1989 was totally false and incorrect. It was only the public who had held the place in ransom. The crew members were on the receiving end and made to suffer by the rough behaviour, unhealthy and unparliamentary wordy assault at the hands of the public, even in cases where the crew members were well within their rights in discharging their official duties. 9. The newspaper clippings enclosed to the counter would prove that the crew members were never and not at all at fault. The outrageous outbursts were common among the industrial workers, blue collar workers and it was also common and prevalent among the white collars and professionals, such stray incidents should not be viewed or taken seriously since they burst on the spur of the moment on account of frustration and sudden provocation. The behaviour during such incidents was unintended unpremediated. The outrageous outbursts were common among the industrial workers, blue collar workers and it was also common and prevalent among the white collars and professionals, such stray incidents should not be viewed or taken seriously since they burst on the spur of the moment on account of frustration and sudden provocation. The behaviour during such incidents was unintended unpremediated. The writ petitioner has alleged that he was prevented from attending his club meeting, this was the provocation for the writ petition and it could not be termed as public interest cause of action. The allegation that the second respondents drivers abandoned their vehicles on the roads on rumours or on getting false information was not true and the writ petitioner had to substantiate and prove his allegation by facts, figures and proofs. Whenever, the crew indulged in such activities they were faced with minimum disciplinary action taken by the second respondent. The writ petitioner without any iota of facts, figures and datas have made bald averments. The action of the crew members has not born out of premediated and preplanned decision, but out of sudden provocation. Even elites, educated, white collars had resorted to strikes to show their solidarity. Boycotts, dharnas and the strike-calls are made on the spur of the movement. The crew members did not possess the mental make up of tolerance. The petitioner, being an elite social worker should be aware of the problems faced by the crew members at the hands of the public and other agencies. No prima facie case had been made out for invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. W.M.P. No. 19565 of 1989 has been filed by the Pallavan Transport Corporation Oozhiyar Munnetra Sangam, represented by its General Secretary, for impleading the union as 4th respondent in the writ petition. The main allegation in the affidavit in support of the writ miscellaneous petition is that when the writ petitioner had made allegations against the crew members of the PTC in general, in fairness he ought to have impleaded the petitioner-union or any other recognised union of the workmen of the PTC as a party to the writ petition. The petitioner union being a proper and necessary party to the writ petition it had to be impleaded. 11. A counter has been filed by the writ petitioner opposing the petition for impleading. The petitioner union being a proper and necessary party to the writ petition it had to be impleaded. 11. A counter has been filed by the writ petitioner opposing the petition for impleading. According to the counter the prayer in the writ petition is only for a direction to the authorities concerned to disclose to the court the names of the drivers and conductors of the PTC buses who had abandoned their buses on the particular days and to disclose as to what disciplinary action the respondents had taken against such erring crew members and for further directions and the union had no locus standi to seek impleadment. The union is neither a necessary nor a proper party. 12. Having regard to the allegations made in the writ affidavit and the stand taken by the parties, I feel that the petition for impleading has to be allowed and the union has to be heard. The W.M.P. No. 19565 of 1989 will stand allowed. 12(a) All the parties were also heard. Having taken an overall picture of the whole thing, I am clearly of the view that proper steps have to be taken to explore the possibility of preventing “wild cat strikes” as they are called from taking place in future. In a Welfare State it is the duty of the state to provide basic transport facilities without being hampered by wild cat strikes which according to the respondents had been provoked on the spur of the moment. Basic necessities of life cannot take a back seat. The wild cat strike is not confined or restricted to any particular area. It is done in the main arterial roads in absolute nonchalance and total disregard and indifference to the common man who depends on bus transport for taking him to places where his presence is required either on duty or on calls of sentiment. It is not of the people who can afford to own exclusive transport facility. By reason of the wild cat strikes the vehicles are abandoned in the middle of the roads preventing other modes of transport from having a smooth running. The crew members ensure that the general public are put to untold misery and suffering. The very object of the wild cat strike is to make people suffer. They take a crude pleasure in doing that. The crew members ensure that the general public are put to untold misery and suffering. The very object of the wild cat strike is to make people suffer. They take a crude pleasure in doing that. The public administration, which is responsible for effective implementation of the rule of law turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to the calls of extremists. 13. In a landmark judgment in Bharat Kumar K. Palicha and others v. State of Kerala and others (1997 (3) LW 3 J.S.) a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court has come down heavily on the bundh-call given in Kerala. The Full Bench declared that the calling for and holding of bundh was unconstitutional and illegal and was a penal offence and issued directions to the state Government and its officials including law enforcement agencies to do all that was necessary to give effect to the declaration by the court in the writ petition. The prayer in the writ petition before the Kerala High Court was to direct the executive to ensure that the rights of the citizens were not trampled upon by a political organisation or a violent minority and in that context, to issue any appropriate direction that might be required in the circumstances of that case. It was alleged that no person had a right to prevent a citizen from going to the hospital or from seeking medical aid and no person or organisation had a right to prevent the doctors from attending on their patients and those who came to them for emergency treatment. It was further stated that the right to go to railway station, the aerodrome and to the bus terminal could not be prevented in the guise of a protest at the instance of some of the political organisations and when such prevention was achieved by threat, sometimes naked and visible and sometimes by psychological means and by the stalking menace, the same had to be prevented. It was contended in the case before the Kerala Bench on behalf of the political parties that to call for a bundh and a protest for any action or inaction on the part of the Executive was the fundamental right of every political party or of every citizen comprising that party and any curtailment of such a right would involve the curtailment of fundamental rights enjoyed by the citizens of this country guaranteed to them under Article 19(1) (a) and (b) of the Constitution. It was also contended that under Article 19(1) (2) of the Constitution, only the State could make a law in so far as such law imposes a reasonable restriction on the exercise of right conferred by Article 19(1) (a) and (b) of the Constitution and so long as no law was made, the court could not abridge or cut down the fundamental right of the political party or its office-bearers to call for a bundh which was only a form of protest and that every citizen had a right to protest and even a right to civil disobedience had come to be recognised as a right of a citizen. 14. Rightly did the Full Bench observe as follows: “Suffice it to say that when a citizen is coerced into not attending to his work or prevented from going out for his work or from practising his profession or carrying on his business, there is involved a violation of his fundamental right at the instance of another. From our understanding of the concept of bundh as set out above, we are of the view that there is such a violation of the rights of the citizen when a bundh is called and held.” 15. The position in the instant case is not any different. By reason of the wild cat strike the mobility of the citizen by locomotion is obstructed. The other vehicles are prevented effectively by the striking crew members from coming any where near the arterial roads. If other vehicles dared then stones are pelted and extensive damage is caused to those vehicles and in the process many innocent persons get seriously injured. Anti-social elements join in the destruction and there is also looting. All vehicles are brought to a standstill and the commner is mortally afraid of stirring out. He could be attacked. 16. If other vehicles dared then stones are pelted and extensive damage is caused to those vehicles and in the process many innocent persons get seriously injured. Anti-social elements join in the destruction and there is also looting. All vehicles are brought to a standstill and the commner is mortally afraid of stirring out. He could be attacked. 16. The Kerala Full Bench has referred to a number of decisions of the Supreme Court: It is worthwhile to reproduce paragraphs-10 and 11 of the said judgment. Paragraph-10 runs as follows: “It is argued with reference to A.K. Gopalan v. State ( AIR 1950 SC 27 ) that the right to move about, of free locomotion, is a fundamental right protected by Article 19 of the Constitution. Right to use the public roads was recognised as a fundamental right in Saghir Ahmed v. State ( AIR 1954 SC 728 ). in Repinder Singh v. Union of India , ( AIR 1983 SC 65 ) and in Satwat Singh v. A.P.O New Delhi ( AIR 1967 SC 1836 ) and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India ( AIR 1978 SC 597 ) upheld the right to travel abroad and the right to locomotion as fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The right to education, at least at the elementary level, has also been recognised and upheld as a fundamental right. Right to medical treatment is protected by Article 21 of the Constitution as held in Parmanand Katara v. Union of India ( AIR 1989 SC 2039 ) and in Paschimbanga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal (1996) 4 SCC 37 . When a ‘bundh’ is called, no locomotion is possible, no vehicle can be put on the road, no student can go to school, no patient can go to his doctor and no one can reach the Airport to travel abroad, public vehicle and private vehicles taken out are attacked and damaged. Anti-social elements also join in such destruction and sometimes indulge in looting. All public transports are brought to a standstill and no citizen can take out his vehicle for fear of attack and destruction. No shop can be kept open. Anti-social elements also join in such destruction and sometimes indulge in looting. All public transports are brought to a standstill and no citizen can take out his vehicle for fear of attack and destruction. No shop can be kept open. Though while calling the bundh there may not be overt threat of violence and destruction, clearly a psychological threat of what will happen if you do not obey the call, is held out by the organisers of the bundh. With reference to Kharak Singh v. State of UP , ( AIR 1963 SC 1295 ) it is contended that not merely physical prevention but even a psychological restriction would be a restriction of the fundamental right of a citizen. We find that there is substance in that submission. In that decision, their Lordships observed as follows:— “So also, creation of conditions which necessarily engender exhibitions and fear complexes can be described as physical restraints. Further, the right to personal liberty takes in not only a right to be free from restrictions placed on his movement, but also free from encroachments on his private life we would therefore, define the right of personal liberty in Art. 21 as right of an individual to be free from restrictions or encroachments on his person, whether those restrictions or encroachments are already imposed or indirectly brought about by calculated measures.” Paragraph 11 runs as follows:— “11. It is argued on behalf of the respondents that it is only the state that can make a law in the interests of public order which could reasonably restrict the fundamental right guaranteed under Articles-19(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution and so long as there is no law made to restrict, regulate or curtail the calling of a bunch, the court cannot grant any relief to the petitioners by prohibiting or restricting the exercise of the right of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article-I9 (1)(a) of the Constitution. What is ‘public order’ within the meaning of article-19(2) of the Constitution is sought to be explained with reference to the decision in Madhu Limaya v. S.D.M. Monghyr ( AIR 1971 SC 2486 ). In that decision, their Lordships observed: — “Public order no doubt also requires absence of disturbances of a state or serenity in society but it goes further. In that decision, their Lordships observed: — “Public order no doubt also requires absence of disturbances of a state or serenity in society but it goes further. It means what the French designate ‘ordre publique’, defined as an absence of insurrection, riot, turbulence, or crimes of violence. The expression public order includes absence of all acts which are a danger to the security of the state and also acts which are comprehended by the expression ‘ordre publique’ explained above but not acts which disturb only the security of others”. After referring to the decision in Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar ( AIR 1966 SC 740 ) expounding the phrase ‘maintenance of public order their Lordships held: “State is at the Centre and Society ‘surrounds it. Disturbances, of society go in a broad spectrum from mere disturbance of the serenity of life to jeopardy of the State. The acts become graver and graver as we journey from the periphery of the larger circle towards the centre. In this journey we travel first through public tranquility, then through public order and lastly to the security of the State.” Learned counsel postulates whether, it is possible for the court to presume the calling of a bundh will disturb public order and to proceed to issue directions under Art. 226 of the Constitution even assuming that it has such a jurisdiction. It is in that context that it is submitted that what Articles 19 and 21 attract are State action and curtailment of the fundamental rights of the citizen guaranteed thereunder and it is not open to this court to issue directions either to legislate curtailing the right to call for a bunch or to issue directions curtailing the fundamental rights guaranteed by these Articles. By the calling of a bundh, there is no attempt to breach public order, whether in its narrow sense or in its expanded sense and in such a situation, the petitioners are not entitled to any relife from this court at this stage. The decision in P.D. Shamdasani v. Central Bank of India ( AIR 1952 SC 59 ) was relied on in support. The decision in P.D. Shamdasani v. Central Bank of India ( AIR 1952 SC 59 ) was relied on in support. It is also submitted that without a legislative definition of the expression ‘bunch’ the court cannot test the legality or unconstitutionality of the calling of or the holding of the bundh on the tourchstone of the fundamental rights of the citizens guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.” The contention on behalf of the respondents in the case before the Kerala Full Bench that by the calling of a bundh there was no attempt to breach public order was discountenanced by the Full Bench. 17. In the instant case there should be only substitution of the words “wild cat strike” for the word “bundh”. Every other aspect referred to by the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court is present in the instant case. 18. It is not disputed by the respondents that there are wild cat strikes as alleged in the writ petition. What the respondents claim is that the strikes are a necessary evil and they are indulged in on the spur of the moment. In my view the crew member who are only a miniscule minority cannot hold the interest of the general public to ransom. 19. It is contended by the respondents that the writ petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the writ petition and that he wants to ventilate his personal grievances. I do not agree. Indeed, it is a public interest litigation and as has been pointed out by several jurists. Indian Courts and Indian Jurisprudence have started taking suffering seriously and PIL contains all the possibility of a silent revolution. As has been pointed out in State of Punjab and other v. G.S. Gill and other (1997) 6 SCC 129 ” the public administration is responsible for effective implementation of the rule of law and constitutional commands which effectuate fairly the objective standards set for adjudging good administrative decisions.. He should have a wider concern for society as a whole. Otherwise he is not worthy to be an administrator or enlightened citizen to work for others; and consequently ‘there is every change of this enlightenment getting eroded and self-interest ruling supreme. He should have a wider concern for society as a whole. Otherwise he is not worthy to be an administrator or enlightened citizen to work for others; and consequently ‘there is every change of this enlightenment getting eroded and self-interest ruling supreme. And once this erosion takes place, they slide slowly down and join the third group (demons manavarakshasas) among whom are found all those who indulge in all sorts of social malpractices, like bribery, corruption, tax evasion, smuggling food and drug adulteration and fourth category become sheer vandals’ In public Administration, responsibility is of highly personal and moral quality and is not necessarily related to formal status or power, although it is probably true that greater power brings greater responsibility. The departmental head is responsible for the action of his subordinates, although in actual fact, he is not responsible for their use of power which, he must of necessity, delegate to them. Legitimacy is primarily a feature of the constitutional system. They possess this quality by virtue of general public support for their authority and may have it in greater or lesser degree. The bureaucracy shares the collective responsibility with political executive to effectuate the constitutional philosophy and public justice. The administrative responsibility lies in giving shape and content not only to the policies laid down in the Constitution and by the political executive but also applies to them in a given set of facts.” 20. As has been pointed out in Gaurav Jain v. Union of India and other (1997) 8 SCC 114 proceedings in PIL are not adversarial but of co-operation and collaboration between the State and the Court Therefore, Court can evolve new methods, tools and procedures to mete out Justice and enforce fundamental rights. 21. It is not for nothing that Article-51 (A) has been added to the Constitution. 21. It is not for nothing that Article-51 (A) has been added to the Constitution. It runs as follows: “Article 51 (d) :— Fundamental Duties - It shall be the duty of every citizen of India – (a) to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the National Flag and the National Anthem; (b) to cherish and follow the noble ideals which inspired our national struggle for freedom; (c) to uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India; (d) to defend the country and render national service when called upon to do so; (e) to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities; to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women; (f) to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture; (g) to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild lite, and to have compassion for living creatures; (h) to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform; (i) to safeguard public property and to abjure violence; (j) to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement. 22. Article 51 (A) (i) is relevant in the present context. It shell be the duty of citizen of India to safeguard public property and to abjure violence. Under the cloak of giving vent to their grievances the crew members have no right whatsoever to cause unreasonable obstruction which may cause inconvenience to the commoner, and also in the process, destroy public property and indulge in violence. The Supreme Court has taken note of the newly added Article in several cases and given directions. 23. Instead of granting the prayer as framed in the writ petition and it would be wholly infructuous in the present context, having regard to the number of years that have gone by, what I feel is that the authorities concerned should ensure that these wild cat strikes and other similar things do not take place in future. Personnel in the Public Sector must be subjected to a regimen of laws which would dissuade them from indulging in such activities in future. Personnel in the Public Sector must be subjected to a regimen of laws which would dissuade them from indulging in such activities in future. The Public Sector undertakings must constitute Forums for the redressal of the grievances of the crew members and removal of irritants which stand in the way of bringing about a healthy relationship between the crew members and the general public. They should also be made aware that the same inconvenience or hardship could be caused to them in a different context and from another section of public utility. They should be impressed with the futility of indulging in activities generating venom and violence. The public authority cannot shirk its responsibility to find speedy solution to the anathema. 24. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of and it is hoped that all the authorities concerned understand the spirit in which the order has been rendered and bring about a better social order in which the rights and duties enshrined in the constitution of India take their proper places. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P. No. 16188 of 1989 is closed.