Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3 (GAU)

Hispreachering Son Shylla v. State of Meghalaya

2010-01-06

A.C.UPADHYAY, J.CHELAMESWAR

body2010
JUDGMENT Jasti Chelameswar, C.J. 1. These two writ petitions are filed with the prayer as follows: ...It is, therefore, prayed that your lordships may be pleased to issue a Rule on the respondents to show cause as to why - (1) A writ in the nature of Certiorari should not be issued declaring the bandhs, picketing, road blockades and purported public curfews etc detailed in this petition as illegal and unconstitutional. (2) The inaction on the part of the Government/Official respondents to protect the citizens from the menace and suffering and losses inflicted on them resulting from all these Bandhs, Picketing, Road Blockades and purported public curfews, etc., an declare such impugned inaction/inadequate action as a failure to discharge their statutory/constitutional duties and obligations towards the citizenry. (3) A writ in the nature of mandamus shall not be issued to the respondent No. 5 to desist from any bandhs, picketing, road blockades and purported public curfews etc an any further sponsoring bandhs, picketing, road blockades and purported public curfews., etc., in the State of Meghalaya and to direct the respondents to ensure that such bandhs, picketing road blockades and purported public curfews, etc., are not recurred/prevented. (4) A direction under the writ of habeas corpus shall not be issued as against forcible and imposed confinement of the citizens through the purported private curfews. (5) All the respondents should not be made responsible and made to recoup the losses suffered by the citizenry as a result of forced and wrongful confinement of the citizenry in the name of curfew, blockades and Bandhs with adequate grant of exemplary costs to be deposited to a fund as may be decided by this hon'ble court. (6) And/or a further direction shall not be given to hold responsible and to prosecute the erring office bearers/functionaries/associates under the relevant penal laws. (7) Call for the records as well as the reports, if any, from the respondents. (in PIL No. 50/05). ...It is respectfully prayed, that your lordships may be pleased to issue a Rule on the respondents to show cause as to why - (1) A writ in the nature of certiorari should not be issued declaring the Bandhs detailed in this petition as illegal and unconstitutional. (in PIL No. 50/05). ...It is respectfully prayed, that your lordships may be pleased to issue a Rule on the respondents to show cause as to why - (1) A writ in the nature of certiorari should not be issued declaring the Bandhs detailed in this petition as illegal and unconstitutional. (2) The inaction on the part of the State respondents to protect the citizens from the menace and suffering and losses inflicted on them resulting from these bandhs and declare such impugned inaction/inadequate action as a failure to discharge their statutory/constitutional duties and obligations towards the citizenry. (3) A writ in the nature of mandamus shall not be issued to the respondent Nos. 5 to 19 to desist from any call for bandh and any further sponsoring of bandhs in the State of Assam and to direct the respondents to ensure that such bandhs are not recurred. (4) To impose exemplary cost upon the private respondents for calling any such bandhs in future. (5) And/or a further direction shall not be given to hold responsible and to prosecute the erring office bearers/functionaries/associates under the relevant penal laws. (6) Call for the records as well as the reports, if any, from the respondents. (in PIL No. 72/05) 2. In substance, in both these PILs the petitioners, who are residents of the States of Meghalaya and Assam and public spirited persons, complain about the frequent calls of bandhs, road blockage, etc., by various, political parties and other organisations. In both the petitions the petitioners have given the details of the various bandhs, etc., called in the last few years prior to filing of these petitions. 3. The issue is no more res-integra and is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court Communist Party of India (M) v. Bharat Kumar and Ors. 1998 1 SCC 201 . 4. In the circumstances both these writ petitions are required to be allowed directing the respondents to strictly implement the law declared by the Supreme Court in the above mentioned judgment by taking all necessary steps for preventing infringement of the various fundamental rights of the citizens on account of the various calls of bandhs etc given from time to time by various political or other organisations. 5. Both the PILs are accordingly disposed of. Petition allowed