1 2025:CGHC:13725 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 690 of 2016 1 - Rakesh Yadav S/o Late B.R. Yadav, Aged About 40 Years R/o Talapara, Main Road, P.S. Civil Line, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, 2 - Bramhanand Vaishnav, H C 297. S/o Late Parmeshwar Das, Aged About 52 Years R/o G R P Outpost, P.S. Champa, Champa, Tehsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh, versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Secretary, Department Of Home, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Director General Of Police, Police Headquarters, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Inspector General Of Police, Police Headquarters, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Miss Rajni Soren, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri SK Puriya, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J Order On Board KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2025.03.22 11:32:30 +0530 2 21/03/2025 1. The petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition and prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing Memorandum dated 18.8.2010 issued by the Assistant Inspector General of Police (Annexure P-1); (ii) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing order dated 7.1.2013 issued by the Additional Secretary, Department of Home (Annexure P-2); (iii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the applications for sanction for forming Police Association in accordance with law; (iv) Pass any other order the Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.” 2. At the outset, learned State Counsel would submit that earlier a writ petition bearing WP(PIL) No.49/2015 was filed by one of the petitioners namely, Rakesh Yadav and the said petitioner had withdrawn the aforesaid writ petition with liberty to file a regular Petition on behalf of the association. He would submit that the present writ petition has not been filed on behalf of the association and the same counsel has filed the present writ petition raising similar cause of action for which the WP (PIL) was filed. He also submits that one of the petitioners namely, Bramhanand Vaishnav has already been superannuated. As per the provisions of Section 3 of the Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Act, 1966 (henceforth ‘the Act, 1966’) there are restrictions respecting right to form association, freedom of speech etc. The aforesaid Act was enacted to provide for the restriction of certain rights 3 conferred by Part-III of the Constitution in their application to the members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order so as to ensure the proper discharge of their duties and the maintenance of discipline among them. It would be profitable to reproduce the said provision here:- “3. Restrictions respecting right to form association, freedom of speech, etc.—(1) No member of a police-force shall, without the express sanction of the Central Government or of the prescribed authority,— (a) be a member of, or be associated in any way with, any trade union, labour union, political association or with any class of trade unions, labour unions or political associations; or (b) be a member of, or be associated in any way with, any other society, institution, association or organisation that is not recognised as part of the force of which he is a member or is not of a purely social, recreational or religious nature; or (c) communicate with the press or publish or cause to be published any book, letter or other document except where such communication or publication is in the bona fide discharge of his duties or is of a purely literary, artistic or scientific character or is of a prescribed nature. Explanation.—If any question arises as to whether any society, institution, association or organisation is of a purely social, recreational or religious nature under clause (b) of this sub- section, the decision of the Central Government thereon shall be final. (2) No member of a police-force shall participate in, or address, any meeting or take part in any demonstration organised by any body of persons for any political purposes or for such other purposes as may be prescribed.” 3. Learned State Counsel would further submit that on representation moved by petitioner No.2, who has already been 4 superannuated, aforesaid intimation was given by way of communication dated 19.8.2010. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that forming an association is guaranteed under Section 19 (1)(c) of the Constitution and the same is restricted by the provisions of Section 3 of the Act, 1966. She would submit that the communication sent to petitioner No.2 vide letter dated 19.8.2010 is bad in law, the same is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and also in violation of the Act, 1966. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length and perusing the documents annexed with the writ petition, this Court is of the opinion that the communication made to petitioner No.2 was strictly in the form of legislative mandate and the same has not been challenged in this writ petition and the petitioners had already withdrawn WP(PIL) No.49/2015 with liberty to file a petition on behalf of the Association. Therefore, on both the scores, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present Writ Petition. 6. The Writ Petition being devoid of any substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Barve