R C SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA TO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that this is a public interest litigation for seeking direction restraining the N.T.P.C. and its employees from going on hunger strike and from taking mass casual leave. It is a democratic country and it is a well-known mode of redressal of grievances. This Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the members of the Bar who frequently resorted to the strike and create similar situation, have no legal justification for restraining the respondents from, doing the same. Curiously, petitioner one is a practicing advocate. How can he champion their cause--neither legally nor morally, he is a fit person.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has. however, placed reliance on the case of Chairman, Railway Board and others v. Chandrama Das and others, 2000 (2) SCC 465. I have gone through this case and found that there is no hard and fast principle laid down which may be applied in the instant case. Learned counsel for the petitioner also cited certain cases but keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the present case. I do not want to refer to them being distinguishable on facts.

(3.) In my view, this petition is misconceived and no Interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is warranted. The writ petition is dismissed.