ORDER 1. People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) has filed this writ petition challenging the validity of the Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005 (the Act) and the notifications dated 12.04.2006 and 12.04.2007 (the Notifications) declaring six organisations as 'unlawful organisations' under the Act. THE FACTS 2. Naxal movement started in village Naxalbari in West Bengal and was result of the split in Communist Party of India (Marxist) in the year 1967. 3. There may be some debate as to the initial motive of the movement, but as time went by, it lost its track and at present, it is off the track. It has adopted undemocratic methods; hampers development; extracts illegal money not only from the big corporations but also from people in general; and commits all kinds of crimes including murders. It started creating law and order problems. 4. The Parliament enacted the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (the Central-Act) in order to curb its menace. 5. In times thereafter, it spread to other adjoining States namely Chhattisgarh, Orissa, Andhra Pradesh, Jharkhand, Bihar, and Maharashtra through underground guerrilla groups. 6. As the naxal movement spread to other States, it started creating problems in those States as well. The States enacted their law to meet its menace and the State of Chhattisgarh also enacted the Act to control it. 7. The State also declared six organisations as unlawful organisations on 12.04.2006 for a year. It was extended from time to time and at present the six organisations are declared as unlawful organisations. 8. PUCL has filed this writ petition challenging vires of the Act and declaration of the organisations as 'unlawful organisations' by the Notifications. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION 9. We have heard the counsel for the parties. The following points arise for determination in the case: (i) Whether the State has got legislative competence to enact the Act; (ii) Whether the Act is arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of article 14 of the Constitution; (iii) Whether the Act is violative of article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution; (iv) Whether the Notifications are illegal. PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 10. The counsel for the Respondents place reliance on some decisions (see below), The cases relied upon by the counsel for the Respondents are as follows: (i) Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others, AIR 2013 Supreme Court 58. (ii) Anand Sharadchandra Oka Vs. PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 10. The counsel for the Respondents place reliance on some decisions (see below), The cases relied upon by the counsel for the Respondents are as follows: (i) Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others, AIR 2013 Supreme Court 58. (ii) Anand Sharadchandra Oka Vs. University of Mumbai & Others, AIR 2008 Supreme Court 1289 (iii) D. Nagaraj & others Vs. State of Karnataka & Others, (1977)2 SCC 148 . (iv) Bhagwan Dass vs. State of UP & Others, (1976)3 SCC 784 . (v) Jonala Narsimharao & Company & others, etc. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others, (1971)2 SCC 163 . (vi) Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India & another, (2004) 6 SCC 254 . (vii)Govt. of National Capital Territory, Delhi Vs. Inder Pal Singh Chadha & others, (2002)9 SCC 461 . (viii)Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company Vs. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & another, (1983)1 SCC 147 (ix) SP Gupta & Others Vs. President of India & Others, AIR 1982 Supreme Court 149, and raise the following preliminary objections: The validity of the Act can be challenged by an aggrieved person and not by an unaggrieved person; PUCL is not an aggrieved person. It has no right to challenge the vires of the Act or the Notifications; In this writ petition, the question regarding validity of the Act is academic. It should not be decided; Though, this WP is not a public interest litigation (PIL), but it is in nature of the same. The question regarding validity of an enactment should not be challenged in a PIL. 11. There is some substance in the preliminary objections raised by the counsel for the Respondents. The persons affected under the Act or by the Notifications have not challenged their validity. They have not come forward to file any writ petition. PUCL is not an aggrieved person. 12. Nevertheless, this writ petition was filed before the Supreme Court and was dismissed with liberty to the PUCL to file it before the High Court. The parties have also argued the case on merits; they have requested us to decide it on merits, and we proceed to decide it. 1st POINT: STATE HAS COMPETENCE Submissions of the Parties 13. 12. Nevertheless, this writ petition was filed before the Supreme Court and was dismissed with liberty to the PUCL to file it before the High Court. The parties have also argued the case on merits; they have requested us to decide it on merits, and we proceed to decide it. 1st POINT: STATE HAS COMPETENCE Submissions of the Parties 13. The counsel for the PUCL places reliance upon a decision (see below), Life Insurance Corporation of India v Vishwanath Verma and Others, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 569, and submits that: The State has no legislative competence to enact the State Act under item 3 of List III (the Concurrent List) of seventh Schedule of the Constitution; The naxal problem is not only limited to the State of Chhattisgarh, but covers many other adjoining States namely West Bengal, Orissa, Andhra Pradesh, Jharkhand, Maharashtra, and Bihar. It is more than public order; The Act can also not be justified under item 1 of List II (state List) of the seventh Schedule of the Constitution. 14. The counsel for the Respondents place reliance on the rulings (see below), The cases relied by the counsel for the Respondents are as follows: (i) Zameer Ahmed Latifur Rehman Sheikh v State of Maharashtra and Others, (2010) 5 SCC 246; (ii) Bharat Hydro Power Corpn. Ltd. and Others v State of Assam and another, (2004) 2 SCC 553 ; and submit that the State has got power to legislate the Act under Item 1 of the State List. (iii) M. Karunanidhi v Union of India and Another, (1979) 3 SCC 431 15. In the alternative, the counsel for the Respondents submit that: In case the Act is not covered under Item 1 of the State List, then it will be covered under Item 1 of the Concurrent List; It will prevail over the other central legislation as the Act has received assent of the President on 07.03.2006. Covered under Item-I of the State List 16. Part XI of the Constitution is titled as 'Relations between the Union and the States.' Chapter-I of this part is titled as 'Legislative Relations.' Articles 245 to 255 are in this chapter. 17. Article 245 of the Constitution is titled as 'Extent of laws made by Parliament and by the Legislatures of States'. It provides that legislature of a State may make laws for the whole or any part of the State. 17. Article 245 of the Constitution is titled as 'Extent of laws made by Parliament and by the Legislatures of States'. It provides that legislature of a State may make laws for the whole or any part of the State. 18. Article 246 of the Constitution is titled as 'Subject-matter of laws made by Parliament and by the Legislatures of States'. It provides that: The Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List-I (the Union List) of the Seventh Schedule; The Parliament as well as the State has a power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List-III (the Concurrent List) in the Seventh Schedule; and The State has power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List-II (the State List). 19. Article 254 of the Constitution is titled as 'Inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the Legislature of States'. It provides that in case of any conflict between the law enacted by the State and the Parliament in respect of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then the law made by the Parliament shall prevail in that State. However, the State law is saved, if the President had given assent to the same. 20. The objects and reasons of the Act states that it was enacted in order to provide for effective control and prevention of unlawful activities of individuals and organisations that are involved in the disruptive activities, adversely affecting the security and development of the State by creating terror and fear (see below for the original objects and reasons in Hindi), The Hindi version of the objects and reasons of the bill is as follows: ^izns’k es vkard ,oe Hk; iSnk dj jkT; dh lqj{kk ,oe fodkl ij izfrdwy izHkko Mkyus okys ,oe fo?kVudkjh d`R;ks es fYkIr jgus okys O;fDr;ks ,oe laxBuks ij vadq’k yxkus rFkk vf/kd izHkkoh :i ls fuokj.k djus ds fy, jkT; es NRrhlx<+ fo’ks”k tu lqj{kk fo/ks;d „00‡ vf/kfu;fer djrk lehphu gS vr% ;g fo/ks;d izLrqr gS-^ 21. The preamble of the Act states that the Act is to provide for more effective prevention of certain unlawful activities of individuals and organisations and matters connected thereto. 22. Item 1 of the State List is as follows: '1. The preamble of the Act states that the Act is to provide for more effective prevention of certain unlawful activities of individuals and organisations and matters connected thereto. 22. Item 1 of the State List is as follows: '1. Public order (but not including the use of any naval, military or Air force or any other armed force of the Union or of any other force subject to the control of the Union or of any contingent or unit thereof in aid of the civil power'. 23. We have no reason to doubt that naxal problem is affecting public order. The Act was enacted to deal with it. It is covered under Item-I of the State-List. 24. The counsel for the PUCL submits that: In order to deal with the naxal problems, the forces under control of the Union are deployed; The problem is inter-state and is grave; The situation is beyond public order and is not covered under Item I of the State List. 25. The meaning of Item 1 of the State List is that the State can make law relating to public order but it cannot make use of armed forces of the Union or any other forces under the control of the Union thought it may use the State machinery to curb the same. 26. Irrespective of the situation prevailing in the State, the naxal activities include, killing of innocent people and use of violent means to disturb the development of the State. It is within public order. The State is competent under Item 1 of the State List to enact the Act. 27. The forces under the control of the Union are deployed in the State but they are not deployed under the Act. It cannot be said that the Act is beyond Item 1 of the State List. 28. Even if the submission of the counsel for the PUCL is taken that the situation is beyond public order and is not covered under Item 1 of the State List, then it would undoubtedly be covered under Item 1 of the Concurrent List, which is as follows: '1. 28. Even if the submission of the counsel for the PUCL is taken that the situation is beyond public order and is not covered under Item 1 of the State List, then it would undoubtedly be covered under Item 1 of the Concurrent List, which is as follows: '1. Criminal law, including all matters included in the Indian Penal Code at the commencement of this Constitution but excluding offences against laws with respect to any of the matters specified in List I or List II and excluding the use of naval, military or air forces or any other armed forces of the Union in aid of the civil power.' 29. There is no dispute that the Act has also received assent of the President on 07.03.2006 and in view of article 254(2) of the Constitution, it prevails over any central legislation in case of any discrepancy between the two. 30. In our opinion, the State legislature has legal competence to enact the Act. 2nd POINT: NOT UNREASONABLE OR ARBITRARY OR VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 31. The counsel for the PUCL places reliance on some rulings (see below), The counsel for the PUCL places reliance on the following rulings: (i) Life Insurance Corporation of India v Vishwanath Verma and Others, 1994 Supp(3) SCC 569; (ii) Anwar Ali Sarkar v The State of West Bengal, {AIR (39) 1952 Calcutta 150}; and (iii) State of Madras v VG Row, { AIR 1952 SC 196 }, in support of the second point, and submits that: (i). The words 'unlawful activity' and 'unlawful organisation' are vaguely defined in the Act, rendering it unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution; (ii). The 'unlawful activities' are also covered under the Chapters VII (Of Offences Relating to the Army, Navy and Air Force), IX (Of Offences by or Relating to Public Servants), and X (Of Contempts of the Lawful Authority of Public Servants) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). There is no proper guideline as to when an offender would be prosecuted under the Act or under the IPC. This renders the Act to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution; (iii). Section 8(5) of the Act provides a punishment of seven years; whereas, section 8(1) and (2) provides only three years and two years. This is arbitrary; (iv). This renders the Act to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution; (iii). Section 8(5) of the Act provides a punishment of seven years; whereas, section 8(1) and (2) provides only three years and two years. This is arbitrary; (iv). Under the Act the District Magistrate has been given power to notify the place used for the purposes of unlawful activity; whereas, under the Central-Act, the Central Government can notify the place. The power under the Act is conferred on a petty officer. This is arbitrary; (v).The penalties under the Act do not include mens rea; whereas, similar penalties under the Central-Act incorporate mens rea. This is unreasonable. First Submission 32. Section 2 of the Act is a definition section. Sub-section (e) of section 2 {2(e)} of the Act defines the word 'unlawful activity'. Clauses (i) to (vii) of section 2(e) of the Act explain what are the unlawful activities. 33. Section 2(e) is as follows: '2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise, requires, - … (e) “Unlawful Activity” in relation to and individual or organization means any action taken by such individual or organization whether by committing an act or by words either spoken or written or by signs or by visible representation or otherwise; (i) which constitute a danger or menace to public order, peace and tranquillity; or (ii) which interferes or tends to interfere with maintenance of public order; or (iii) which interferes or tends to interfere with the administration of law or its established institutions and personnel; or (iv) which is designed to overawe by criminal force or show of criminal force or otherwise to any public servant including the force of the State Government or the Central Government in the exercise of the lawful powers of such public servant. (v) of indulging in or propagating acts of violence, terrorism, vandalism or other acts generating fear and apprehension in the public or indulging in or encouraging the use of firearms, explosives and other devices or disrupting communications by rail or road; or (vi) of encouraging or preaching disobedience to established law and its institutions; or (vii) of collecting money or goods forcibly to carry out any one or more of the unlawful activities mentioned above;' 34. Section 2(e) of the Act essentially provides that if an individual or organisation takes any action by committing an act by words either spoken or written or by signs or by visible representation which constitute the different actions mentioned in clauses (i) to (vii) of section 2(e) of the Act, then that amounts to unlawful activity. 35. Different clauses of section 2(e) of the Act provide the activities that interfere with the maintenance of the public order, peace and tranquillity or collecting money or goods to carry out any of the other illegal activities mentioned in sub-clauses (i) to (vii). There is no vagueness in them. 36. The word 'unlawful activity' is also defined under the Central-Act. It is as follows: '2. Definitions. -(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, - … (o) “unlawful activity”, in relation to an individual or association, means any action taken by such individual or association (whether by committing an act or by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representation or otherwise),- (i) which is intended, or supports any claim, to bring about, on any ground whatsoever, the cession of a part of the territory of India or the secession of a part of the territory of India from the Union or which incites any individual or group of individuals to bring about such cession or secession; or (ii) which disclaims, questions, disrupts or is intended to disrupt the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India; or (iii) which causes or is intended to cause disaffection against India.' 37. The definition of unlawful activity under the Central-Act is similar but is with reference to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India; whereas, under the Act, unlawful activity is defined with reference to the public order. This difference between the two is for the reason that both the enactments are enacted under different entries, which permit them to enact the law. 38. Section 2(f) of the Act defines the word 'Unlawful Organisation'. It is as follows: ''Unlawful Organisation' means any organisation which indulges in or has for its object abets or assists or give aid, succor or encouragement directly indirectly, through any medium device or otherwise to any unlawful activity.' 39. 38. Section 2(f) of the Act defines the word 'Unlawful Organisation'. It is as follows: ''Unlawful Organisation' means any organisation which indulges in or has for its object abets or assists or give aid, succor or encouragement directly indirectly, through any medium device or otherwise to any unlawful activity.' 39. Section 2(f) of the Act explains that an organisation indulging or having its object to abet, assist or giving aid or encouragement directly or indirectly to the unlawful activities is an unlawful organisation. There is no vagueness. 40. Section 2(1)(p) of the Central-Act defines the words 'Unlawful Association'. It is as follows: '2. Definitions.— (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,— ... (p) 'unlawful association' means any association,— (i) which has for its object any unlawful activity, or which encourages or aids persons to undertake any unlawful activity, or of which the members undertake any such activity; or (ii) which has for its object any activity which is punishable under section 153A or section 153B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or which encourages or aids persons to undertake any such activity, or of which the members undertake any such activity: Provided that nothing contained in sub-clause (ii) shall apply to the State of Jammu and Kashmir;' 41. The definition of unlawful association in the Central-Act is differently worded than the Act but import is the same. 42. In our opinion, the words 'unlawful activities' and 'unlawful association' are not vaguely defined in the Act. Second Submission 43. An illegal act may be an offence under different sections of the same enactment or under different enactments. A person accused of committing that act is required to be prosecuted under all those sections in the same enactment or sections of the different enactments. There is no question of choosing between them or providing guidelines for the same. 44. In case, a person has done an act which is an offence under the Act as well as under the IPC, then that person is required to be prosecuted under both the enactments and there is no question of providing any guidelines for choosing either one. Both should be chosen. There is neither arbitrariness or unreasonableness. There is no discrimination as well. Third Submission 45. Both should be chosen. There is neither arbitrariness or unreasonableness. There is no discrimination as well. Third Submission 45. Section 8 of the Act provides punishment for different offences: Sub-section (1) of section 8 {8(1)} of the Act provides where the member of unlawful organisation takes part in the meeting or activities or contributes or receives any contribution for the purpose of such organisation, its punishment is three years; Sub-section (2) of section 8 {8(2)} of the Act provides the punishment of two years for the similar action if the person was not a member of the unlawful organisation; Sub-section (5) of section 8 {8(5)} of the Act provides that whoever commits or abets or attempts to commit or plans to commit any unlawful activity in any specified area shall be punished with imprisonment for seven years for this activity. 46. The offence mentioned under section 8(5) of the Act is different from the offence mentioned in sections 8(1) and 8(2) and in case the offence is different, then the different punishment can always be provided. Merely because different or higher punishment is provided for different offence, it cannot be said that it is unreasonable. Fourth Submission 47. Section 8 of the Central-Act confers power on the Central Government to notify the place used for the purpose of unlawful organisation. In contradistinction, section 9 of the Act empowers the District Magistrate to notify the place used for the purpose of unlawful activities. 48. The District Magistrate is not Central Government or the State Government. He is an officer of lower rank. But merely for this reason the provision cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable. 49. The District Magistrate is the highest officer in the District. He is best informed about the activities that are being done in that district. He is the fittest person to notify such place. 50. In our opinion, it cannot be said that conferment of power on the District Magistrate is unreasonable or arbitrary. Fifth Submission 51. The English criminal law is mostly the common law, the judge-made law and mens rea forms an important ingredient of the same. However, the Indian criminal law is statutory law and the position is different. 52. In our country, in criminal law, mens rea is included in the section itself. Fifth Submission 51. The English criminal law is mostly the common law, the judge-made law and mens rea forms an important ingredient of the same. However, the Indian criminal law is statutory law and the position is different. 52. In our country, in criminal law, mens rea is included in the section itself. The legislature in its wisdom includes different levels of mens rea in defining a particular offence according to the situation prevailing in the society. It is best explained by Shri MC Setalwad in his classic 'The Common Law in India' (see Appendix-I). 53. A penal provision may be struck down as discriminatory but an illegal act affecting public order may not be struck down merely for the reason that it does not encompass mens rea. 54. Nevertheless, we refrain from finally deciding this submission of the counsel for the PUCL as this writ petition is not by an aggrieved person. We leave it to be decided in an appropriate case where an affected person raises this question. This submission may be raised at that time and decided in accordance with law. 55. In our opinion, the Act is not unreasonable, arbitrary or violative of article 14 of the Constitution. 3rd POINT: NOT VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 19(1)(c) 56. The counsel for the Petitioners, places reliance on a decision (see below), The counsel for the Petitioners places reliance on Anwar Ali Sarkar v The State of West Bengal, AIR (39) 1952 Calcutta 150 and submits that: Sub-clause (c) of clause (1) of Article 19 {19(1)(c)} of the Constitution guarantees freedom to form association; The objects and reasons of the Act show that the Act was enacted to control and prevent the adverse affect on development; No restriction can be placed under clause (4) of Article 19 {19(4)} of the Constitution to restrict the right under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution to prevent the adverse affect on development; The provisions of the Act are violative of Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India. 57. Article 19 of the Constitution is titled as 'Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.' Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution guarantees the right to form association or unions. 58. Article 19(4) of the Constitution permits the State to impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, or public order, or morality. 59. 57. Article 19 of the Constitution is titled as 'Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.' Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution guarantees the right to form association or unions. 58. Article 19(4) of the Constitution permits the State to impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, or public order, or morality. 59. Under article 19(4) of the Constitution, apart from other reasons, the State can impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order. 60. While dealing with the second point, we have already held that the restrictions are reasonable. The only question is, whether they are in the interest of public order or not? 61. According to the counsel for the PUCL, The object and reasons show that the restrictions are to curb the disturbance in the development; This is not part of public order; The restrictions cannot be imposed under article 19(4) of the Constitution. 62. The import of the Act is to be seen by different sections and not by objects and reasons. Even if the objects and reasons are to be taken into account, they talk about the adverse effect because of the terror and fear. In case, the development is affected because of terror and fear, it is undoubtedly a problem of public order. The State can impose reasonable restrictions to control the same: it is covered by public order. 63. In our opinion, The restrictions are reasonable; They have been imposed in the interest of public order; The Act is not violative of article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution. 4th POINT: NOTIFICATIONS—NOT ILLEGAL 64. The counsel for the PUCL places reliance on a decision (see below), Life Insurance Corporation of India v Vishwanath Verma and Others, 1994 Supp(3) SCC 569, and submits that: Six organisations were declared to be unlawful organisation for a period of one year by the notification dated 12.04.2006. This was again extended for a period of one year on 12.04.2007; However, the Advisory Board itself was constituted on 22.05.2007 ie an year after the initial declaration; The entire initial period of declaring the organisation unlawful was illegal as there was no recommendation of the Advisory Board regarding declaration. 65. Section 3 of the Act is titled as 'declaration of organisation as unlawful'. 65. Section 3 of the Act is titled as 'declaration of organisation as unlawful'. Under this section, if the State Government is of the opinion that the organisation has become an unlawful organisation, then it may declare such organisation to be unlawful. 66. Nevertheless, mere opinion of the State Government is not sufficient to continue the organisation as unlawful organisation. It can continue for a period of one year provided that it is approved by the Advisory Board. This may be extended for a further period of one year at a time. 67. Section 4 of the Act is titled as 'representation by organisations'. It permits the unlawful organisation to make representation and it is to be considered by the Advisory Board. 68. Section 5 of the Act is titled as 'constitution and reference to the Advisory Board'. It provides constitution of three member Advisory Board. These three members should be or have been or qualified to be appointed as judges of the High Court. 69. Section 6 of the Act is titled as 'Procedure of the Advisory Board'. It provides submission of the report of the Advisory Board after giving opportunity of personal hearing. 70. Section 7 of the Act provides that the government is bound to act in accordance with the report of the Advisory Board. 71. Section 12 of the Act is titled as 'Revision'. It provides a revision before the High Court against the notification of the government under section 3(1) of the Act or its confirmation under section 7(1) of the Act ie to say that the orders/ notifications declaring an organisation to be 'unlawful organisation' is subject to revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. The High Court can see the legality, correctness or propriety of the order/notification. 72. The initial opinion/ order/ notification of the Government as well as its confirmation after report of the Advisory Board is subject to judicial scrutiny of the High Court. It shows that the provision cannot be unreasonably exercised. There are sufficient safeguards. The provision cannot be said to be unreasonable. 73. Initially, the notification dated 12.04.2006 was for a period of one year. Thereafter, it was again extended for a period of one year on 12.04.2007. 74. It is correct that the Advisory Board was constituted on 22.05.2007 ie to say more than a year after the initial notification dated 12.04.2006. The provision cannot be said to be unreasonable. 73. Initially, the notification dated 12.04.2006 was for a period of one year. Thereafter, it was again extended for a period of one year on 12.04.2007. 74. It is correct that the Advisory Board was constituted on 22.05.2007 ie to say more than a year after the initial notification dated 12.04.2006. However, the relevant point to note is that the writ petition itself was filed on 06.04.2009, that is to say even after expiry of one year of the period of the notification dated 12.04.2007. 75. It is not disputed that the subsequent notifications declaring the six organisations as 'unlawful organisations' have already been approved by the Advisory Board. At present, the Advisory Board consists of three senior-most judges of this court. They have approved the declaration. No revision has been filed against the same. 76. The fact that at the initial stage, there may be some illegality in not constituting the Advisory Board or not obtaining its opinion, but it cannot be quashed at this stage, when the fresh notifications have been issued and they have been approved by the Advisory Board; especially when they are neither challenged by that organisation nor any revision under section 12 of the Act has been filed. A SUGGESSTION 77. While hearing the third submission in the second point, it came to our notice that section 8(5) of the Act used the words 'specified area'. It is nowhere defined in the Act. This point was not taken by the Petitioners in the writ petition and as such it was not replied in the return. 78. The counsel for the Respondents also could not point out any provision defining the words 'specified area'. They submit that once the area is notified by the District Magistrate, it becomes specified area. 79. We do not wish to adjudicate upon the question, whether the words 'specified area' used in section 8(5) of the Act are same as the area notified by the District Magistrate under section 9(1) of the Act or not. However, it would be better for the State Government to provide appropriate amendments in the Act. CONCLUSIONS 80. 79. We do not wish to adjudicate upon the question, whether the words 'specified area' used in section 8(5) of the Act are same as the area notified by the District Magistrate under section 9(1) of the Act or not. However, it would be better for the State Government to provide appropriate amendments in the Act. CONCLUSIONS 80. Our conclusions are as follows: (a) The State has got the legislative competence to enact the Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005; (b) Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005 is not arbitrary, unreasonable or violative of article 14 of the Constitution. It is also not violative of article 19(1)(c); (c) The notifications dated 12.04.2006 and 12.04.2007 have out-lifted their utility. Their place has been taken by the new notifications that are approved by the Advisory Board. The declaration of the organisations mentioned in those notifications as 'unlawful organisations' cannot be held to be illegal; (d) The question whether mens rea is included in the penal provisions of the Chhattisgarh Vishesh Jan Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2005 or not and what is the meaning of 'specified area' under section 8(5) of the Act may be decided in an appropriate case. 81. In view of our conclusions, there is no merit in the writ petition. It is dismissed with the observation mentioned in clause (d) of the preceding paragraph.