AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J
“Daman Pratirodha Mancha”, an unregistered association formed in the year 2003 with the aim and objective to sponsor the cause of the tribals, dalits, farmers, fishermen and weaker sections of the society, more specifically the exploited down trodden sections residing in the State of Odisha in a democratic method, has filed this writ petition with the following relief:-
“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ petition, and after hearing the parties the impugned notification dated 20.06.2006 Annexure-2 may kindly be quashed and the petitioner organization may kindly be allowed to function freely independently as per its aims and objectives and the opp. parties may kindly be restrained not to interfere in the smooth functioning of the petitioner-organization and may kindly co-operate with the petitioner-organisation to fulfil its objects.”
The factual matrix of the case, in a nutshell, is that the petitioner-association since its formation has been functioning within the frame work of the Indian Constitution by observing the democratic principles. It is not a frontal organisation of any political party known in whatsoever name it may be. The petitioner-association as well as its members have strong faith, respect and honour upon the Constitution of India and have been functioning in a discipline and a democratic manner. As such, it puts forth its grievances before the State Government in connection with the land reforms, restoration of tribal lands to the tribals, which are occupied by the non-tribals and influential persons in scheduled areas, providing minimum wages to daily wage earners, stop the plundering of natural resources that is serving the interests of multinationals and monopoly big industrialists of the country, withdrawal of CRPF from the scheduled areas who have been committing atrocities on innocent tribals. Incorporating details of the grievances, the petitioner-association as well as its members and the public in the locality submitted a memorandum appearing personally before the Chief Minister of Odisha, who, after being fully convinced, assured to the petitioner-association to solve these problems gradually by mobilizing State machinery. During the discussion it was felt that the grievances are genuine, proper and just, for which quick action is required to be taken to stall the discontentment, which may lead to violation movement and may affect the sentiment of local mob. As a consequence thereof, the petitioner-association made door to door campaign to communicate this message which ultimately improved the hope of the distress people.
2.1. While the petitioner-association was functioning for the wellbeing of the people, being encouraged by the Government of Odisha, more specifically by the active co-operation of the Chief Minister of Odisha, all of a sudden the State Government, vide Home Department notification dated 20.06.2006, declared the petitioner-organisation as an “Unlawful Association” vide S.R.O. No.352/2006 in its Gazettee Notification No. 888 published on 23.06.2006. The petitioner-association, as per the impugned notification has been stated to be sub-serving the interest and objectives of the Communist Party of India (Maoist) and has been indulging in the unlawful activities enumerated in four sub-paragraphs of the said notification. In the said notification it was indicated that the petitioner-association has been indulging in unlawful activities by means of force, violence, etc. The notification dated 20.06.2006 is extracted herein below:-
“HOME DEPARTMENT
NOTIFICATION
The 20th June 2006
S.R.O. No.352/2006—Whereas the association known as Communist Party of India (Maoist), with the avowed objective to overthrow the lawfully established Government by means of force and violence and through terrorist activities involving the use of fire arms and explosives has indulged in various unlawful activities;
And whereas its front organisation namely, Daman Pratirodha Manch, subserving the interests and objectives of the Communist Party of India (Maoist), has been indulging in the following unlawful activities, namely:-
(i) Subserving the interests and objectives of Communist Party of India (Maoist), whose avowed objective is to overthrow the lawfully established Government by means of force and violence through terrorist activities, involving the use of fire arms and explosives;
(ii) Inciting gullible tribals and other weaker sections of the society to take to violence against the Government established by law;\
(iii) Organizing ‘dharanas’, rallies and other forms of agitation in support of the unlawful activities of the Communist Party of India (Maoist);
(iv) Organizing 'dharanas’, rallies and other agitations demands the release of hard core left wing extremists lodged in jails either under judicial custody or on conviction;
And whereas the State Government are of the opinion that for the aforesaid reasons the association, namely, Daman Pratirodha Manch interferes and has for its object interference with the administration of law and with the maintenance of law and order and its activities constitute a danger to the public peace.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 16 of the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908 (Act 14 of 1908), the State Government hereby declare the Daman Pratirodha Manch to be an unlawful association with immediate effect.
[No. 2738/C]
By order of the Governor
SANTOSH KUMAR
Principal Secretary to Government”
2.2. Aggrieved by the above notification dated 20.06.2006, the petitioner-association approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. This Court issued notice to the opposite parties and upon hearing the parties although reserved the judgment, vide order dated 15.03.2007, but the matter could not be disposed of. Thereafter, this Court, vide order dated 09.03.2011, passed the following order:-
“Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner’s Association, namely ‘Daman Pratirodha Mancha” is not a political organisation, rather it is a social organisation, however it is not a registered association.
He further submits that it has got its own written bye laws enumerating its objects.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to produce the same for our perusal on the next date.
List this matter on 17.03.2011.
Sd/- V. Gopala Gouda, C.J.
Sd/-B.N. Mahapatra, J.”
2.3. In compliance of the above order, the petitioner-association, on 22.03.2011, produced the bye-law, a copy of which was given to the learned Government Advocate, who was directed to go through the same. Again, on 05.04.2011, this Court passed the following order:-
“None appears for the parties.
On 9.3.2011 this Court directed the learned counsel for the petitioner to produce the bye-laws of the petitioner's organization.
On 22.3.2011 learned counsel for the petitioner filed a memo stating therein that he has filed two sets of bye-laws. On the basis of the said memo this Court on 22.3.2011 directed the learned counsel for the petitioner to serve a copy of the bye-laws upon the learned Government Advocate. However, on perusal of the said documents, it appears that it is not a bye-law and it is simply a Programme in which the Organisational Structure and Principles of the petitioner's organization has been explained. Further the same is not a registered one. Therefore, the Memo filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that two sets of bye-laws of the petitioner's association are filed is not correct. Therefore, list this matter next week for preliminary hearing on the question of maintainability of the writ petition in the absence of any registered bye-laws of the petitioner’s association.
Sd/- V. Gopala Gowda, C.J.
Sd/-B.N. Mahapatra,J.”
2.4. Thereafter, on 18.04.2011, this Court disposed of the writ petition by passing the following order:-
“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate.
The petitioner who is neither registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 or under The Representation of People Act, 1950 is before this Court seeking for quashing of the impugned notification dated 20.06.2006 passed by the Principal Secretary to the Government, Home Department, Government of Orissa in the name of the Governor that the petitioner organization is involved in unlawful activities as enumerated in the said notification.
(i) Subserving the interests and objectives of the Communist Party of India (Maoist), whose avowed objective is to overthrow the lawfully established Government by means of force and violence through terrorist activities, involving the use of fire arms and explosives;
(ii) Inciting gullible tribals and other weaker sections of the society to take to violence against the Government established by law;
(iii) Organizing ‘dharanas’, rallies and other forms of agitation in support of the unlawful activities of the Communist Party of India (Maoist);
(iv) Organizing 'dharanas', rallies and other agitations demands the release of hard core left wing extremists lodged in jails either under judicial custody or on conviction;
Therefore, the same has been challenged urging various legal contentions and prayed for quashing the impugned notification dated 20.06.2006 by issuing a writ of certiorari.
With a view to satisfy ourselves, we directed the petitioner to produce its registered bye-law registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 vide our order dated 09.03.2011. Pursuant to the said direction, learned counsel for the petitioner files a memo on 22.03.2011 annexing therein two sets of the alleged bye-laws. To our repeated question to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner-organization is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, he has answered in the negative. Further no document has been filed on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner to show that the same is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.
As could be seen from the said document the activities undertaken by the organization is in the nature of political. Therefore, the petitioner-organization can be termed as a political party and the same is required to be registered before the Election Commission of India under The Representation of People Act, 1951. The same has not been done in the present case.
The State Government has filed a detailed counter affidavit justifying its action in issuing the notification stating that the unlawful activities enumerated in the notification or the activities which are being carried on will be danger to the maintenance of law and order and administration by the State. Therefore, it is contended by the learned Government Advocate that the impugned notification need not be quashed and if it is quashed, then public interest will suffer. It is further stated that in the interest of maintenance of rule of law, the said notification has been issued and it does not call for any interference by this Court in this writ petition.
After hearing the learned Government Advocate and learned counsel for the petitioner at length, we have carefully gore through impugned notification with reference to the pleadings, particularly, the materials made available for our perusal pursuant to our direction dated 09.03.2011. It is noticed that the said document of programme of the petitioner is in the nature of the political activities to be undertaken by the Petitioner-organization. The same is not registered before Election Commission of India under The Representation of People Act, 1951. Therefore, it is open for the petitioner to file a petition before the Election Commission of India for registering its organization as a political party. If the petitioner wanted to review the notification issued by the Government of Orissa, it is open for the petitioner to give a representation to the State Government stating that it is not supporting the activities of Communist Party of India (Maoist). If such a representation is filed, the State Government may consider the same with reference to its programme and activities which are being undertaken by the petitioner prior to the date of notification and subsequent to the same.
With the above said liberty and observation, the petition is disposed of, since this Court cannot interfere with the impugned notification.
The Misc. Case No. 8651 of 2006 is also disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this order be given on proper application.
Sd/- V. Gopala Gowda, C.J.
Sd/-B.N. Mahapatra,J.”
2.5. Against the order dated 18.04.2011 passed by this Court in the present writ petition, the petitioner-association preferred SLP (Civil) No. 697 of 2012 before the apex Court seeking following relief:-
“MAIN PRAYER
It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
a. grant Special Leave to Appeal against the impugned final order dated 18.04.2011 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in WP C No 9742/06 :
b. pass such order or further order as may be deemed fit and proper.
INTERIM RELIEF:
It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
a. grant ad-interim ex-parte stay of the operation of the impugned final order dated 18.4.2011 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in WP C No 9742/06 :
b. pass such order or further order as may be deemed fit and proper.”
Notice was issued and the SLP (C) No. 697 of 2012 was registered as Civil Appeal No. 1212 of 2017. The apex Court, vide order dated 30.01.2017, disposed of the Civil Appeal with the following order:-
“DAMAN PRATIRODHA MANCHA ... Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ORISSA & ORS. ... Respondents
ORDER
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties finally at this stage as the counsel for both the sides were ready to advance their arguments.
The respondent-State had issued notification dated 20.06.2006 in exercise of powers conferred by Section 16 of Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act 1908 (Act 14 of 1908) (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) thereby declaring the appellant-association to be an unlawful association with immediate effect. In the impugned notification, the Government took note of certain activities in which the appellant-association was allegedly indulging in, which were termed as unlawful activities.
The appellant filed writ petition before the High Court challenging the said notification on various grounds. One of the grounds taken was that the said Act, under which the impugned notification was issued, was unconstitutional and violative of Article 19 of the Constitution of India. The High Court has, after allowing the respondent to file counter affidavit and going through the same, dismissed the writ petition. It is, inter alia, observed that the activities of the appellant are in the nature of political activities but the appellant is not registered before the Election Commission of India under the Representation of the People Act, 1950. Liberty is, therefore, given to the appellant to file a petition before the Election Commission of India for registering its association as a political party.
We are of the opinion that the High Court has not focussed or dealt with the issue that was involved, viz., validity of the notification dated 20.06.2006 that was passed by the respondent-Government declaring the appellant to be an unlawful association.
Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the judgment of this Court in ‘State of Madras v. V.G. Row’ [1952 (1) SCR 597] wherein similar provisions of Criminal Law Amendment (Madras) Act, 1950, were held to be unconstitutional and outside the scope of authorised restrictions under clause (4) of Article 19.
We, thus, set aside the impugned judgment and remit the case back to the High Court to decide the issue involved in this case afresh on merits.
Since the impugned notification is of the year 2006, the High Court is requested to decide the case as expeditiously as possible.
We may make it clear that this Court has not considered the merits of the case and it will be open to the High Court to decide the issue in the light of arguments that would be advanced by both the parties.
Appeal disposed of in aforesaid terms.
Sd/-A.K. SIKRI, J.
Sd/-R.K. AGRAWAL, J.”
2.6. In compliance to the order passed by the apex Court, the matter was listed on 08.03.2021 and this Court passed the following order:-
“1. Heard Mr. Prasanta Kumar Jena, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S. Palit, learned Additional Government Advocate for Opposite Party – State.
The present petition is listed pursuant to an order of Supreme Court dated 30th January 2017 passed in Civil Appeal No.1212 of 2017. Inter alia while setting aside the order passed by this Court on 18th April 2011 it has been observed by the Supreme Court that the High Court has not dealt with the issue involved, viz., the ‘validity of the notification dated 20th June 2006 that was passed by the respondent Government declaring the appellant to be an unlawful association.’
The Court notices that the pleading in the petition are already complete. It would be open to both the Petitioner as well as to the State to file supplementary affidavits to apprise the Court what the current status is since the date of disposal of the present petition earlier on 18th April 2011. These W.P.(C) No.9742 of 2006 2 affidavits be filed not later than 12th April 2021.
List on 11th May 2021.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(B. P. Routray)
Judge”
Learned counsel for the State, on 04.12.2021, filed a supplementary affidavit on behalf of the opposite parties, a copy of which was served on learned counsel for the petitioner vide order dated 06.12.2021. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner did not wish to file any reply to the supplementary affidavit filed by the State on 04.12.2021, which was also recorded in the order dated 14.02.2022. After taking adjournments on several occasions, the matter was, however, finally heard on 08.09.2023.
Mr. P.K. Jena, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-association vehemently contended that opposite party-State had issued notification dated 20.06.2006, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 16 of Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908 (Act 14 of 1908), thereby declaring the petitioner-association to be an unlawful association with immediate effect. The Government had taken note of certain activities, which were termed as unlawful activities, in which the petitioner-association was allegedly indulging. Even though such notification was challenged before this Court in the present writ petition to declare the same as unconstitutional and violative of Article 19 of the Constitution of India, but, this Court, after allowing the opposite parties to file counter affidavit and going through the same, dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 18.04.2011. It was observed that the activities of the petitioner-association are in the nature of political activities but the petitioner-association is not registered before the Election Commission of India under the Representation of the People Act, 1950. Thereby, liberty was granted to the petitioner-association to file a petition before the Election Commission of India for registering its association as a political party. It is further contended that the apex Court, while considering the Civil Appeal, found that the High Court has not focussed or dealt with the issue that was involved, viz., validity of the notification dated 20.06.2006 that was issued by the Government declaring the petitioner-association to be an unlawful association. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner now confines this case to the validity of the notification issued on 20.06.2006 by the Government declaring the petitioner-association as unlawful, bereft of other contention raised in the writ petition. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner-association has placed reliance on the case of State of Madras v. V.G. Row, 1952 (1) SCR 597 : AIR 1852 SC 196, wherein similar provisions of Criminal Law Amendment (Madras) Act, 1950 were held to be unconstitutional and outside the scope of authorised restrictions under clause (4) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India.
Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate, relying upon the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State-opposite parties, specifically urged that the Left Wing Extremist Movement, otherwise known as “Naxal Movement”, which originated in Naxalbari area of North West Bengal in 1967, had its impact in parts of Northern and Southern Odisha. The Movement originated with the avowed objective of overthrowing the existing system of governance established by the Constitution of India and the laws framed thereunder and establish a single party dictatorship in the country in the Maoist model of China through an armed movement. Various groups having this type of ideologies initiated armed uprisings against the constitutionally established State and its organs particularly the security forces in furtherance of their objectives. In the late nineteen sixties and early seventies, the armed groups of militants carried out selective annihilation of the so called “Class Enemies”, i.e., rich people, money lenders, land owners, government servants including the security personnel; resorted to forcible land grabbing, etc. in Northern end Southern Odisha. The Movement resurfaced in the mid eighties in the undivided Koraput district in the Southern Odisha. The revised militant movement was initially spearheaded by the Naxal Group CPML (PWG) from the period 1984 to 1998, then by CPML-P.W. (after the merger of Andhra Pradesh based CPML-P.W.G. and Bihar based CPML-Party Unity in 1998) from 1998 to 2004 and presently by CPI (Maoist), which has come into existence after the merger of the two predominant Naxal Maoist Outfits, i.e., Andhra Pradesh based CPML-P.W. and Bihar/Jharkhand based M.C.C.-I in September, 2004 both of whom are listed in “The Schedule” of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967, as amended in 2004, as “Terrorist Organizations”. The activities of the militant Naxal Group CPI (Maoist) have spread to the parts of 14 out of the 30 districts of the State. This militant group has been indulging in unlawful activities, senseless violence, carrying out military type operations, targeting the security forces positions, looting weapons of the security forces, running an intricate network of fund raising through extortion and other coercive methods, dispensing justice in so called Praja Courts, recruiting and arming innocent Adivasis by whipping up anti-Government sentiments, trying to render the Government machinery ineffective in their areas of influence by terror tactics and create Liberated Zones and run parallel administration. To substantiate the same, documents have been annexed as Annexure-A/1, i.e. Naxal Violence Profile and violent incidents committed by Left Wing Extremists and cases registered from 1990 to 2006. It is contended that the entire activities of the petitioner-association is absolutely detrimental to the interest of the State, peace and tranquillity. He further contended that the propagandas and press notes issued by them, leaflets containing agitation against the ruling Government and the agenda of the CPI (Maoist) State Level Organisation to agitate against the Government have been annexed under Annexure-B/1. Therefore, the impugned notification has been issued to curb such act of the petitioner-association.
4.1. He further contended that in exercise of the power conferred under Section 16 of the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, the Government of Odisha in Home Department issued the notification, vide SRO No. 352/2006 dated 20.06.2006, declaring the petitioner-association as unlawful with immediate effect. Such notification was issued taking into consideration the unlawful activities of the petitioner-association. Thereby, no illegality or irregularity has been committed, nor it undermines the fundamental right as enshrined under Article 19 (1)(c) of the Constitution of India. The State Government, as per the provisions of the Constitution of India, is duty bound to maintain the rule of law and, hence, has to take legal recourse against any person or persons, group or groups, organization or organizations like that of the petitioner, which indulges in unlawful activities. Thereby, while exercising the power conferred under Section 16 of the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, the State Government is not legally required to issue any prior notice to show cause, since it is based on exceptional circumstances, in which the entire fabric of the State is at stake. As a consequence thereof, the said notification dated 20.06.2006 is intra vires and well justified and does not warrant interference of this Court, for which the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
This Court heard Mr. P.K. Jena, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties in hybrid mode and perused the records. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission.
The present writ petition challenging the notification dated 20.06.2006, which was issued in exercise of the power conferred under Section 16 of the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, declaring the petitioner-association as unlawful with immediate effect, was disposed of vide order dated 18.04.2011, which was challenged before the apex Court by filing SLP (C) No. 697 of 2012, which was ultimately registered as Civil Appeal No. 1212 of 2017. Vide order dated 30.01.2017, the apex Court opined that the High Court has not focussed or dealt with the issue that was involved, viz., validity of the notification dated 20.06.2006 that was issued by the Government declaring the petitioner-association to be an unlawful association and accordingly set aside the order dated 18.04.2011 and remanded the matter to this Court for adjudication. Now, therefore, this Court has to examine the validity of the notification dated 20.06.2006, which has been issued in exercise of the power conferred under Section 16 of the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, declaring the petitioner-association to be an unlawful association with immediate effect.
The Indian Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1908 (14 of 1908) was enacted on 11th December, 1908 with the avowed objective to provide for speedy trial of certain offences and for the prohibition of associations dangerous to the public peace. Part II of the said Act deals with unlawful association. Section 15 deals with definition and Section 15 (1) provides the meaning of association whereas Section 15 (2) deals with unlawful association. For better appreciation, Sections 15 and 16 are extracted hereunder:-
“15. Definition- In this Part
(1) “association” means any combination or body of persons, whether the same be known by any distinctive name or not; and
(2) “unlawful association” means an association-
(a) which encourages or aids persons to commit acts of violence or intimidation or of which the members habitually commit such acts, or
(b) which has been declared to be unlawful by the State Government under the powers hereby conferred.
State Amendments—Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area)—Same as that of Tamil Nadu — Andhra Pradesh Act 9 of 1961, S. 3 and Sch.
Gujarat—Same as that of Maharashtra.—Gujarat Act 11 of 1960, S. 87 and Gujarat A.L.O., 1960.
Maharashtra—In its application to the State of Maharashtra, in S.15
(i) in Cl. (2), the word "or" at the end of sub-Cl. (a) and sub-Cl. (b) shall be deleted -Bombay Act 24 of 1959, S. 2 (w.e.f. 27-4-1959).
(ii) in Cl. (2), after the words "habitually commit such acts", insert the following namely:--
“or
(b) which has been declared to be unlawful by the State Government under the powers hereby conferred."—Maharashtra Act 38 of 1975, S. 2 (w.e.f. 10-7-1975).
Tamil Nadu.-In its application to the State of Tamil Nadu, in sub-S. (2), for Cl. (b), substitute the following clause, namely:—
“(b) which has been declared by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette to be unlawful on the ground (to be specified in the notification) that such association—
(i) constitutes a danger to the public peace, or
(ii) has interfered or interferes with the maintenance of public order or has such interference for its object, or
(iii) has interfered or interferes with the administration of the law, or has such interference for its object."—Tamil Nadu Act 11 of 1950, S. 3 (w.e.f. 12-8-1950).
Power to declare association unlawful.-[(1) If the State Government is of opinion that any association interferes or has for its object interference with the administration of the law or with the maintenance of law and order, or that it constitutes a danger to the public peace, the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare such association to be unlawful.
***
State Amendments—Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area).—Same as that of Tamil Nadu.— Andhra Pradesh Act 9 of 1961, S. 3 and Sch.
Gujarat].—S. 16 shall be deleted.—Gujarat Act 11 of 1960, S. 87 and Gujarat A.L.O. 1960.
Maharashtra] —In its application to the State of Maharashtra, for S. 16, substitute the following section namely:-
“16. Power to declare association unlawful— If the State Government is of opinion that association interferes or has for its object interference with the public administration or the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the life of the community or the administration of the law or the maintenance of law and order, or that it constitutes a danger to the public peace, the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare such association to be unlawful”-Maharashtra Act 38 of I97-71. S.3 (w.e.f. 10-7-147).
Tamil Nadu].—In its application to the State of Tamil Nadu, for S. 16, substitute the following section, namely,
“16. Procedure for issue of notification declaring association to be unlawful.—(l) A notification issued under clause (b) of sub-section
(2) of section 15, in respect of any association, shall,—
(a) specify the ground on which it is issued, the reasons for its issue, and such other particulars, if any, as may have a bearing on the necessity therefor; and
(b) fix a reasonable period for any office bearer or member of the association or any other person interested to make a representation to the State Government in respect of the issue of the notification.
(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall require the State Government to disclose any facts which it considers to be against the public interest to disclose.
16-A. Reference to Advisory Board and cancellation or modification of notification.— (1) After the expiry of the time fixed in the notification for the making of representations in respect of the issue thereof, the State Government shall place before an Advisor- Board constituted under sub-section (2), a copy of the notification and also of the representations, if any, received before such expiry.
(2) The State Government shall, whenever necessary, constitute one or more Advisory Boards, and each such Board shall consist of three persons who are, or have been, or are qualified to be appointed as, Judges of the High Court, and one of them shall he its Chairman. The Chairman and the other members of each Board shall be appointed by the State Government.
(3) The Advisory Board shall, after considering the materials placed before it and, if necessary, after calling for such further information as it may deem fit from the State Government or from any office-bearer or member of the association concerned or any other person, submit its report to the State Government.
(4) The report of the Advisory Board shall specify in a separate part thereof its opinion or that of the majority of its members as to whether or not there was sufficient cause for the issue of the notification in respect of the association concerned.
(5) Nothing in this section shall entitle any person to attend in person or to appear by any legal representative in any matter connected with the reference to the Advisory Board, and the proceedings of the Advisory Board and its report, excepting that the part thereof in which its opinion or that of the-majority of its members is specified, shall be confidential.
(6) In any case where the Advisory Board or a majority of its members has reported that there is no sufficient cause for the issue of the notification in respect of the association Concerned, the State Government shall cancel the notification in respect of such association.---Tamil Nadu Act 11 of 1950, S. 3 (w.e.f. 12-8-1950).”
On perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it would be seen that the term “unlawful association” has been defined in Section 15(2) to mean that an association (a) which encourages or aids persons to commit acts of violence or intimidation or of which the members habitually commit such acts, or (b) which has been declared to be unlawful by the State Government under the powers thereby conferred. While considering the “unlawful association” definition of the association, as has been defined in Section 15(1), has to be taken note of, which means any combination or body of persons, whether the same be known by any distinctive name or not. Admittedly, the so called petitioner-association is not a registered association. Nothing has been placed on record to show that it was ever intended to register the same under the provisions of law, such as, the Societies Registration Act, 1980 or Representation of People Act, 1950 or any other law applicable for registration of an association. There is no dispute before this Court that the petitioner-association has not been registered, rather in the name of espousing the public cause, it is doing certain activities, which is absolutely prohibitive in nature. As a consequence thereof, the State Government opined that the petitioner-association interferes and has for its object interference with the administration of law and with the maintenance of law and order and its activities constitute a danger to the public peace and, accordingly, issued the notification on 20.06.2006 in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 16 of the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908 (Act 14 of 1908) by declaring the petitioner-association to be an unlawful association with immediate effect. The impugned notification dated 20.06.2006 passed by the Principal Secretary to the Government in Home Department indicating therein that the association is involved in unlawful activities, as enumerated under clause-(i) to (iv). Even though the petitioner was called upon to produce its registered bye-laws under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, by the order of this Court on 09.03.2011, in compliance to the said order, the petitioner produced certain documents on 22.03.2011 stating the same as the bye-laws of the petitioner-association, but, this Court, vide order dated 05.04.2011, observed that the same are not the bye-laws of the petitioner-association, as the same is not a registered association. Thereby, the documents, which have been filed before this Court to establish as to whether the petitioner-association is registered one or not, cannot be construed to be the bye-laws of the petitioner-association. In any case, it is the admitted case of the petitioner that it is an unregistered association. But its activities, which have been mentioned in the pleadings of the writ petition, if will be adjudged, it can be termed as a political party. If that be so, it also requires a registration before the Election Commission of India under the Representation of People Act, 1950, but that has not been done. Thereby, a group of people remaining in a group, claiming to have formed an association, if indulged in certain activities, which is detrimental to the interest of the public as well as the administration of the State, it cannot be construed that it is an association within the meaning of Section 15 (1) of the Indian Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1908.
Therefore, taking into consideration the provisions contained in Section 15(2)(a) of the Indian Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1908, if an association encourages or aids persons to commit acts of violence or intimidation or of which the members habitually commit such acts, be construed to be an unlawful association. Thereby, under Section 15 (2)(b) of the said Act, the power is conferred with the State Government to declare the said association as unlawful. Examining the present case within the meaning of Section 15 (2) of the Act, the definition of “unlawful association” and with special reference to clause (a) of Section 15 (2), the impugned notification has been issued on 20.06.2006 referring to clause (i) to (iv), the petitioner can be construed to be an “unlawful association”.
The genesis of the petitioner-association is well founded in view of the fact that Left Wing Extremist Movement, otherwise known as “Naxal Movement”, which originated in Naxalbari area of North West Bengal in 1967, had its impact in parts of Northern and Southern Orissa. The movement originated with the avowed objective of overthrowing the existing system of governance established by the Constitution of India and the laws framed thereunder and establish a single party dictatorship in the country in the Maoist model of China through an armed movement. Various groups having this type of ideologies initiated armed uprisings against the constitutionally established State and its organs particularly the security forces in furtherance of their objectives. In the late nineteen sixties and early seventies, the armed groups of militants carried out selective annihilation of the so called “Class Enemies”, i.e., rich people, money lenders, land owners, government servants including the security personnel; resorted to forcible land grabbing, etc. in Northern end Southern Odisha. Mid seventies could contain the movement contained due to strong police, administrative and political response. The movement resurfaced in the mid eighties in the undivided Koraput district in the Southern Odisha. The revised militant movement was initially spearheaded by the Naxal group CPML (PWG) from the period 1984 to 1998, then by CPML-P.W. (after the merger of Andhra Pradesh based CPML-P.W.G. and Bihar based CPML-Party Unity in 1998) from 1998 to 2004 and presently by CPI (Maoist), which has come into existence after the merger of the two predominant Naxal Maoist outfits, i.e., Andhra Pradesh based CPML-P.W. and Bihar/Jharkhand based M.C.C.-I in September 2004 both of whom are listed in “The Schedule” of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967, as amended in 2004, as “Terrorist Organizations”. The activities of the militant Naxal group CPI (Maoist) have spread to parts of 14 out of the 30 districts of the State. This militant group has been indulging in unlawful activities, senseless violence, carrying out military type operations, targeting the security forces positions, looting weapons of the security forces, running an intricate net work of fund raising through extortion and other coercive methods, dispensing justice in so called Praja Courts, recruiting and arming innocent Adivasis by whipping up anti-Government sentiments, trying to render the Government machinery ineffective in their areas of influence by terror tactics and create Liberated Zones and run parallel administration. During the period 1990 to 2006 (till August), as many as 41 security personnel and 35 civilians have lost their lives, more than 600 firearms have been looted from the security personnel and large quantity of public / private property has been looted 3 damaged in Naxal violence. Over the years the Naxal militancy has assumed a serious proportion and it poses a serious threat to the internal security of the State. While the underground Maoist militants of CPI (Maoist) have been carrying on terror activities in their areas of influence in parts of Southern and Northern Odisha, the over ground front/ allied organizations like Daman Pratirodh Manch, created by CPI (Maoist) have been making assiduous efforts to subserve the interests and objectives of the CPI (Maoist) by carrying on mass line activities in the pretext of championing the cause of the Adivasis. The objective of these organizations is to create a mass support base / platform through which the Maoist/Naxal ideology can be glorified and popularized and Maoist / Naxal influence can be spread to nevi areas, particularly to the urban and semi-urban areas so that the underground cadres can operate in those areas and gradually assert their hegemony.
Section 16 provides the Power to declare association unlawful, wherein it has been indicated that if the State Government is of opinion that any association interferes or has for its object interference with the administration of the law or with the maintenance of law and order, or that it constitutes a danger to the public peace, the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare such association to be unlawful. The activities, which have been carried out by the petitioner-association, have been enumerated in clause (i) to (iv) of the notification itself. The organisation has been indulged in unlawful activities like-
(a) Subserving, aiding and abetting the unlawful and violent activities of the militant naxal group Communist Party of India (Maoist), whose avowed objective is to overthrow the lawfully established Government by means of force and violence through terrorist activities involving the use of firearms and explosives.
(b) Inciting innocent tribals and other weaker sections of the society to take to violence against the Government established by law.
(c) The leaflets brought out and circulated by the said organization contain write-ups consistent with the line of thought of the naxal group CPI (Maoist).
(d) Some of the leaflets contains pro-CPI (Maoist) slogans urging upon people to revolt against the existing system of governance and bring about a New Democratic Revolution.
(e) Some of the leaflets urged the security forces to oppose the existing system of governance.
(f) Some of the leaflets openly criticized the judiciary for convicting few accused persons, who had been arrested in Malkangiri, Gajapati and Mayurbhanj districts in connection with naxalite activities.
(g) In most of the programme organized by the said organization, known naxal activists or/and naxal ideologues attended and delivered speeches eulogizing; the naxal movement.
(h) The words and slogans used in most of the leaflets were nothing but the rhetoric of the naxal group CPI (Maoist). Such slogans or/and rhetoric do not commonly used or published or in any way subscribed to by any political party / parties during their programme. The words used in those leaflets are carefully chosen to sub serve the interest and objectives of the militant naxal group CPI (Maoist).
(i) Shri Dandapani Mohanty and his organization has supported the South Orissa bundh call given by the naxal group CPML-P.W. (24.9.2004) protesting against the arrest of 18 naxal cadres, who had been arrested by Malkangiri district Police on 15.08.2004 while they were returning to their bases after attending the Jana Garjan Samabesh organised by Daman Pratirodh Manch at Bhubaneswar on 14.09.2004.
The above mentioned activities of the petitioner-association can be construed to be unlawful. Therefore, the contention raised, that the petitioner-association has been functioning within the frame work of the Indian Constitution and observing the democratic principles and the said organization as well as its members have strong faith, respect and honour upon the Constitution, is absolutely misleading. Rather, the petitioner-association is subserving the aims and objective of the militant naxal group CPI (Maoist), as revealed from the documents filed by the opposite parties in the counter affidavit.
Every association, may it be registered or unregistered, has a right to protest against the act of the State Government within the meaning of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of India. But if it exceeds its limit in the name of protest, the same cannot be covered under the protective umbrella of the fundamental rights as enshrined under the Constitution. The activities of the so called petitioner-association are akin and identical to the naxal movement and, as such, with the militant naxal group CPI (Maoist), of which the conveners have tried to use firearms and explosives in the pretext of fighting for the cause of tribals and weaker sections of the society. The booklets which have been circulated only glorify the naxal movement, otherwise known as Left Wing Extremist in the country and also in the State of Odisha. The entire act emerged as a pre-dominant terrorist/extremist movement having terror network in several States of the country including Odisha, thereby possess a serious threat to the internal security of the nation and the State. Many hard core underground cadres operating in the naxal affected area of Southern Odisha are involved in several cases of attacking and opening fires at the security personal, planting landmines to ambush the security forces, blasting up police posts, etc. and some of them had been arrested. More so, as has been admitted by their convener, most of them are hard core naxal cadres. Thereby, by inciting the innocent tribal and other weaker sections of the society to take to violence affecting law and order situation against the Government and acting prejudicial and detrimental to the public order and rule of law can come within the definition of Section 15(2) of the Indian Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1908 as unlawful association.
On perusal of the documents available on record, it reveals that the petitioner-association demands that the persons, those who have been arrested in connection with naxal movements, should have been treated as political prisoners. It is also their demand to release them, who have been convicted in connection with naxal militant violence and lodged in different jails in the naxalite affected districts. It is also revealed that the military type of attacks carried out by the Maoist extremists by killing three police personnel, looting of huge quantity of arms and ammunition, releasing the Under Trial Prisoners by attacking the Sub-jail, looting and burning of the records of Tahasil Office and making hostage of government officials shows the real face of the organisation and its agenda to subserve the interest and objectives of CPI (Maoist). Therefore, the action of the members of the association can be termed as barbaric, cruel and repressive etc., but they have been projected as revolutionaries, heroes, oppressed and their activities have been shown as just and legal. Revolutionary way of action cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The demand raised with regard to withdrawal of CRPF from naxal affected areas and release of all accused persons arrested and withdrawal of all the cases registered in connection with naxal movement can only subserve the interest of the militant naxal group of CPI (Maoist) and that itself cannot be construed that the petitioner-association is acting in consonance with the provision of the Constitution. If the petitioner-association works for the benefit of the public at large with a motive to maintain the peace and tranquillity, in that case the petitioner-association should have been registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1980 or as a political party under the Representation of People Act, 1950 so as to espouse the cause of the citizens not through violence or the activities which have been indicated and placed on record for consideration.
While exercising the power conferred under Section 16 of the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, the provision does not require to issue any prior notice to show cause, rather, the present situation is an exceptional circumstances in which the entire fabric of the State is at stake. In view of the materials available on record, since the State Government was sufficiently equipped with the substantive material and declared an unregistered organisation as unlawful association, it is well within the provisions of Section 16 of the Act.
Much reliance was placed on the judgment of the apex Court in the case of V.G. Row (supra), wherein the similar provisions, i.e., Indian Criminal Law Amendment (Madras) Act, 1950 was considered and the same was held to be unconstitutional and outside the scope of unauthorised restriction under Clause (4) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India. The fact of that case is totally different from that of the present one. In the said case, the order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras was under challenge, whereby while adjudging Section 15 (2) (b) of the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, as amended by the Indian Criminal Law Amendment (Madras) Act, 1950, the same was held to be unconstitutional and void, and the Government Order No. 1517, Public (General) Department dated 10.03.1950, whereby the State Government decided the society called “People’s Education Society” as an unlawful association. The said society was a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Alleging infringement of fundamental right conferred on him by Article 19 (1)(c) of the Constitution to form association or union and seeking appropriate relief, the respondent therein had approached the High Court of Madras. The Full Bench of Madras High Court allowed the same by declaring such notification as unconstitutional. The said order was challenged in the apex Court by the State of Madras, since the notification issued on 10.03.1950 was declared as unconstitutional. While dealing with the matter, the Constitution Bench of the apex Court at paragraph-10 of the judgment observed as follows:-
“10. It will be seen that while old section 16 expressly conferred on the Provincial Government power to declare associations unlawful if, in its opinion, there existed certain specified grounds in relation to them, those grounds are now incorporated in section 15(2)(b) as amended, and the reference to the "opinion" of the Government is dropped. This led to some discussion before us as to whether or not the grounds referred to in section 15 (2) (b) as amended are justiciable issues. if the factual existence of those grounds could be made the subject of inquiry in a court of law, the restrictions sought to be imposed on the right of association would not be open to exception, but then the Government would apparently have no use for section 15 (2) (b). For, it was strenuously contended on its behalf by the Attorney-General that the incorporation of these grounds in a definition clause, which made a declaration by Government the test of unlawfulness, rendered the insertion of the words "in its opinion" unnecessary and, indeed, inappropriate, and that the omission of those words could not lead to any inference that the grounds on which the declaration was to be based were intended to be any more justiciable than under the old section 16; more especially as the "opinion" or the "satisfaction" of the Government or of its officers is still the determining factor in notifying a place under section 17 A (1) and in forfeiting the movables found there- in under section 17B (1) or the funds of an unlawful association under section 17E (1). The provision for an inquiry as to the existence or otherwise of such grounds before an Advisory Board and for cancellation of the notification in case the Board found there was no sufficient cause for declaring the association as unlawful also pointed, it was urged, to the same conclusion. The contention is not without force, and the position was not contested for the respondent. It may, accordingly, be taken that the test under section 15 (2) (b) is, as it was under the old section 16, a subjective one and the factual existence or otherwise of the grounds is not a justiciable issue.”
At paragraphs-11 and 12 of the said judgment, the apex Court formulated the questions to the following effect:-
“11. It is on this basis, then, that the question has to be determined as to whether section 15 (2)(b)as amended falls within the limits of constitutionally permissible legislative abridgement of the fundamental right conferred on the citizen by article 19 (1) (c). Those limits are defined in clause (4) of the same article.
"(4) Nothing in sub-clause (c) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any imposing, in the interests of public order or morality, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause."
It was not disputed that the restrictions in question were imposed "in the interests of public order". But, are they "reasonable" restrictions within the meaning of article 19 (4)?”
Finally, at paragraph-19 of the judgment the apex Court held as follows :-
“Having given the case our best and most anxious consideration, we have arrived at the conclusion, in agreement with the learned Judges of the High Court, that, having regard to the peculiar features to which reference has been made, section 15 (2)(b) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, as amended by the Criminal Law Amendment (Madras) Act, 1950, falls outside the scope of authorised restrictions under clause (4) of article 19 and is, therefore, unconstitutional and void.”
The facts, which have been narrated in the present case, are absolutely distinct and separate from the facts narrated in the judgment of V.G. Row (supra). Therefore, the said judgment is distinguishable.
In D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305, the apex Court held that the court can strike down an unconstitutional part of a legislative action.
In Sanjeev Coke Mfg. Co. V. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (1983) 1 SCC 147, the apex Court held that the validity of legislation is not to be judged by affidavits filed on behalf of the State but by all the relevant circumstances which the court may ultimately find and more specifically by what may be gathered from what the legislature itself has said.
In Man Singh V State of Punjab, (1985) 4 SCC 146 : AIR 1985 SC 1737, the apex Court held that the true test of the validity of the statute must be the effect and consequence of its operation on the fundamental right of the citizen.
In Express Newspapers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 872 : (1986) 1 SCC 133, the apex Court held that the principle of ultra vires requires statutory powers to be exercised reasonably, in good faith and on correct grounds. The Court assumes that Parliament cannot have intended to authorise unreasonable action which is therefore ultra vires and void. The Court is concerned only in the acts of legal power, i.e., acts which if valid themselves produce legal consequence. The doctrine of ultra vires can cover virtually all situations where statutory power is exercised contrary to some legal principles. Where a public authority is held to have acted for improper motives or irrelevant considerations, its action is ultra vires and void.
In State of A.P. v McDowell, AIR 1996 SC 1627 : (1996) 3 SCC 709, the apex Court held that the law made by the Central or State legislation can be struck down only on the following grounds;
(a) the legislative competence of the Legislature in question; or
(b) violation of any fundamental right; or
(c) violation of any other constitutional provision.
Similar view has also been taken by the apex Court in the case of State of Kerala v, Peoples Union for Civil Liberties, (2009) 8 SCC 46.
Therefore, the present case has to be considered taking into account the principle laid down by the apex Court in McDowell (supra). At best, this matter can come within the ambit of clause (b) to declare the provision contained under Section 16 of the Indian Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1908 as unconstitutional and outside the scope of the authorised restriction under Clause (4) of Article 19. As discussed above, the notification of the Govt. of Odisha, which has been issued on 20.06.2006, cannot be construed to be in violation of Clause (4) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India.
Relying upon the judgements of the apex Court in the cases of State of Bihar v. K.K. Mishra, AIR 1971 SC 1667 and Virendra v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 896, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no scope for the petitioner-association to represent its defence before or after it is declared as unlawful in the notification which contains only allegation which requires independent inquiry. But fact remains the petitioner-association is neither registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1980 nor under the Representation of People Act, 1950. But its activities are so tell-tale and create a situation which is detrimental to the interest of the society. The notification is quite explicit one and self explanatory. Thereby, it cannot be construed that it comes within the purview of the reasonable restriction and, thus, it should be set aside.
The further contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in Dr. N.B. Khare v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 139, the apex Court held that the notification and the Act need to be tested within the permissible limits of Article 19 (4) of the Constitution of India on the ground of substantial procedure. Due to inadequacy of the publication of the impugned notification under Section 16 of the Act, the same is void. But fact remains, if this principle is applied, in the present case the impugned notification has been published in the official gazette and the same has been acted upon. Thereby, it cannot be construed that there is failure in the procedural aspect so as to interfere with the same.
Reliance has also been placed on the case of Nandini Sundaram v. State of Chhatisgarh, 2008 SCC OnLine SC 1969, where the reference has been made to the book title ‘the dark side of the globalisation”, and the apex Court observed as follows:-
“The persistence of "Naxalism", the Maoist revolutionary politics, in India after over six decades of parliamentary politics is a visible paradox in a democratic "socialist" India. India has come into the twenty-first century with a decade of departure from the Nehruvian socialism to a free-market, rapidly globalizing economy, which has created new dynamics (and pockets) of deprivation along with economic growth.
Thus the same set of issues, particularly those related to land, continue to fuel protest politics, violent agitator politics, as well as armed rebellion.... Are governments and political parties in India able to grasp the socio- economic dynamics encouraging these politics or are they stuck with a security-oriented approach that further fuels them?”
The contention raised, that the opposite parties have produced no valid materials before this Court to prove that the petitioner-association is encouraging or supporting unlawful activities independently or subserving CPI (Maoist) party by any manner whatsoever, is absolutely contrary to the records available. Therefore, the principle-wise what has been stated in the book itself, there is no dispute, rather applying the above principle to the present case is just opposite, because ample materials have been placed on record to show how the petitioner-association, including the conveners, has indulged in the activities subserving the CPI (Maoist). Thereby, the allegation to that extent cannot be sustained.
Much reliance has been placed on Indra Das v. State of Assam, (2011) 3 SCC 380, where the apex Court laid down the principle when a provision is declared to be ultra vires and held that where the statute violates constitutional provisions, primarily an attempt would be made to read it down to make it constitutional, or else it can be declared unconstitutional. Further held, ordinarily literal rule of interpretation while construing a statutory provision should be followed, but where such interpretation makes provision unconstitutional it can be departed from and statute would be read down to make it constitutional. Though much reliance has been placed by the petitioner on the above mentioned judgment, but the principle laid down by the apex Court is squarely applicable to the opposite parties and not to the petitioner.
In Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam, (2011) 3 SCC 377, the apex Court, while dealing with the matter relating to right to form association and freedom of expression for the membership of banned/ terrorist organisation, held that mere membership of a banned organisation will not make a person criminal unless he resorts or incites people to violence or creates public disorder by violence or incitement to violence. So far as the conviction on sole basis of confession made to police, in absence of corroboration, it was also held confession is a weak kind of evidence and considering widespread and rampant practice of police to use third degree methods for extracting confessions from accused, courts should be cautious while accepting them. Consequentially, the judgment passed by the Designated Court, Assam at Guwhati dated 28.03.2007 in TADA Sessions Case No. 13 of 1991 was set aside and direction was given to release the appellant on bail on furnishing adequate security to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, AIR 2015 SC 1523, the apex Court, while considering the constitutional validity of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act (21 of 2000) pertaining to sending offensive message online, held that there is an intelligible differentia between speech on internet and other medium of communication. Therefore, the plea taken, that Section 66A is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, is not tenable.
In Meneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, the apex Court held that the compulsion of constitutional humanism and the assumption of full faith in life and liberty cannot be so futile or fragmentary that any transient legislative majority in tantrums against any minority by their quick reading of a bill with the requisite quorum and prescribe any unreasonable modality and, thereby sterilize the grandiloquent mandate.
Considering the facts and law, as discussed above, the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, that the case is covered by the judgment of the apex Court in V.G. Row (supra) wherein Section 15 (2)(b) of Criminal Law (Amendment) Madras Act, 1950 was declared as unconstitutional as it falls outside the scope of authorised restrictions under Clause-4 of Article 19, cannot have any application to the present case, as factually the present case stands altogether on a different footing than V.G. Row (supra) and, as such, the same is distinguishable. Thus, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the notification dated 20.06.2006, as at Annexure-2, issued by the Government under Section 16 of the Indian Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1908. As a consequence thereof, the writ petition merits no consideration and the same stands dismissed. But, however, under the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
…………………………