1 2025:CGHC:52625-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 766 of 2025 1. Rakesh Yadav S/o Late B.R. Yadav, Aged About 49 Years R/o Talapara, Main Road, P.S. Civil Line, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Bramhanand Vaishnav, S/o Late Parmeshwar Das, Aged About 62 Years H C 297, R/o G R P Outpost, P.S. Champa, Champa, Tehsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Secretary, Department Of Home, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. Director General Of Police, Police Headquarters, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4. Inspector General Of Police, Police Headquarters, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Ms. Rajni Soren, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.10.30 10:21:49 +0530 2 Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 29.10.2025 1. The appellant/ writ petitioners have filed this writ appeal assailing the order dated 21.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPC No. 690 of 2016, by which, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the writ petitioners. 2. The writ appeal has been filed with the following prayer:- “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this writ appeal and may kindly set-aside the order dated 21.3.2025 passed in W.P. (C) No. 690 of 2016 Rakesh Yadav & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. and reliefs claimed in the writ petition may kindly be granted, in the interest of justice.” 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioners were serving as constables under the Government of Chhattisgarh at the time of filing the original writ petition. During pendency of the petition, petitioner no. 1 was terminated from service but was subsequently reinstated and continued in service at the time when the impugned order was passed, whereas petitioner no. 2 had already superannuated prior to that. Presently, only petitioner no. 1 remains in service. The petitioners, representing Class III and 3 Class IV policemen of Chhattisgarh, had made several representations to the authorities seeking permission to form a Police Association. Their grievance arises from the rejection of these representations by the respondents. The petitioners relied upon Article 33 of the Constitution of India, which empowers Parliament to impose reasonable restrictions on the fundamental rights of members of the armed forces and forces charged with the maintenance of public order, and referred to the Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Act, 1966 enacted under the said Article. Section 3 of the Act restricts the right of policemen to form associations without prior sanction of the Central Government or the prescribed authority. In furtherance of their demand, the petitioners submitted a representation dated 02.06.2008 to the Home Secretary, seeking sanction to form a Police Association. However, the Assistant Inspector General of Police, vide memorandum dated 18.08.2010, opined that the formation of a police union was prohibited under Section 3(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the Additional Secretary, Department of Home, vide memorandum dated 07.01.2013, rejected the petitioners’ application for sanction to constitute an association, stating that it was not capable of consideration under law. Thereafter, petition was preferred before the Single Bench which was dismissed. Thus this appeal. 4 4. The learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order dated 21.03.2025 and the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:- “ XXX 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.” 5. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that forming an association is guaranteed under Section 19 (1) (c) of the Constitution and the same is restricted by the provisions of the Section 3 of the Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Act, 1966 (henceforth “the Act, 1966”). Communication sent to petitioner No.2 vide letter dated 19.8.2010 is bad in law, the same is 5 arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and also in violation of the Act, 1966. 6. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would submit that earlier a writ petition bearing WP(PIL) No.49/2015 was filed by one of the appellant namely, Rakesh Yadav and the same was withdrawn with liberty to file a regular Petition on behalf of the association. He would further submit that the writ petition was not filed on behalf of the association nor the present appeal is filed on behalf of the association and the same counsel has filed the present writ appeal 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 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. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 6 8. This Court finds no merit in the present writ appeal. The appellants, being members of the police force, are governed by the Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Act, 1966, which has been enacted under Article 33 of the Constitution of India to impose reasonable restrictions on the fundamental rights of members of the armed forces and forces charged with the maintenance of public order. Section 3 of the said Act expressly restricts members of the police force from forming any association without prior sanction of the Central Government or the prescribed authority. In the present case, the appellants’ representation seeking such sanction was duly considered and rejected by the competent authority vide order dated 07.01.2013. The said order, being in conformity with the legislative mandate, cannot be said to be arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Further, the earlier writ petition (WP(PIL) No.49/2015) filed by one of the appellants on the same issue was withdrawn with liberty to file a proper petition on behalf of the proposed association; however, the present proceedings have again been instituted in an individual capacity and not on behalf of any duly sanctioned association. In view of these facts and in the absence of any challenge to the validity of the statutory provisions under which the impugned order was passed, no ground is made out for interference. 7 9. Further, the scope of interference in an intra-court appeal is limited to cases where the order of the learned Single Judge suffers from patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. In the present case, we find that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti