SUPRADIP ROY Vs. MAMATA BANERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is the contention of the petitioner that the Respondent No. 1 has been served with notice of hearing of the instant application upon the personal assistant of Respondent No. 1, namely Mr. Dilip Majumdar, who however refused to put his signature at the copy of the letter but assured that the petition will be handed over to Miss. Mamata Banerjee, Respondent No. 1 and the Respondent No. 1 is expected to return at her residence at about 2.00 p.m. The Respondent No. 1A, Mr. Pankaj Banerjee, has not been served. On behalf of the Respondent No. 1B, Mr. D.C. Roy, learned Advocate appears along with Mr. H. Guha Roy. The Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 have been served and represented by Mr. Tapan Dutta, learned Advocate for the State of West Bengal. In view of the urgency, Rule 27 of the writ rules stands dispensed so far as non-appearing respondents are concerned. The petitioner, in person, appears and refers two judgments and decisions of the Full Bench of Kerala High Court, Bharat Kumar K. Palicha & Anr. v. State, reported in AIR 1997 Kerala page 291 which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court and reported in 1998 at Supreme Court Cases (1) Pg. 201. The Supreme Court in a short judgment affirmed the said judgment of Kerala High Court and it has stated that the Kerala High Court has made correct observations so far as paragraphs 12, 13 & 17 of the judgment delivered by the Kerala High Court, which is reported in AIR 1997 Kerala 291. Relevant portion of the paragraph 12 of the Kerala High Court judgment as reported in AIR 1997 Kerala 291 at page 298 is set out here-in-below:

(2.) Relevant portion of the paragraph 13 of the Judgment are also set out below :-

(3.) Kerala High Court, however, has also observed that the general strike and Hartal is different from Bandh. In fact in paragraph 14, the Kerala High Court has observed inter alia as follows :- "It may be true that the political parties and organisers may have a right to call for non-cooperation or to call for a general strike as a form of protest against what they believe to be either an erroneous policy or exploitation. But when exercise of such a right infracts the fundamental right of another citizen who is equally entitled to exercise his rights, the question is whether the right of the political party extend to right of violating the right of another citizen In railway Board, New Delhi, v. Niranjan Singh, reported in AIR 1969 SC 966, the Supreme Court observed :-