DAMAN PRATIRODHA MANCHA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) '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 Sec. of the society, more specifically the exploited down trodden Sec. residing in the State of Odisha in a democratic method, has filed this writ petition with the following relief:-

(2.) 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.

(3.) Mr. P.K. Jena, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-association vehemently contended that opposite party-State had issued notification dtd. 20/6/2006, in exercise of powers conferred by Sec. 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 dtd. 18/4/2011. 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 dtd. 20/6/2006 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 20/6/2006 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.