[Since Seemandhra media is still trying to confuse people about Article 371D and its impact on Telangana statehood, we are publishing the judgement given by honorable AP State High Court, a few days back. This judgement comprehensively clarifies that Article 371D does not prevent Telangana formation]
—
HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT ON ARTICLE 371 D
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA
AND
*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.435 OF 2013
Dated 8-10-2013
P.V. Krishnaiah
….. PETITIONER
VERSUS
Union of India, rep. by its Cabinet Secretary, Central Secretariat,
New Delhi and others
RESPONDENTS
Counsel for Petitioner : P.V. Krishnaiah
Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud,
Assistant Solicitor General
Counsel for Respondent No.4 : G.P. for G.A.D.
Counsel for Respondent Nos. 5 to 15: None
GIST : HEAD NOTE :
Cases referred :
AIR 1973 SC 1461
AIR 1996 SC 1627
AIR 1967 SC 1643
AIR 1975 SC 2299
AIR 1980 SC 1789
AIR 1987 SC 386
AIR 1997 SC 1125
(2007) 2 SCC 1
AIR 1960 SC 51
AIR 1979 SC 193
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH
AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.435 OF 2013
DATED:8.10.2013
Between:
P.V. Krishnaiah … Petitioner
And
Union of India, rep. by its
Cabinet Secretary
Central Secretariat,
New Delhi
and others … Respondents
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.435 OF 2013
ORDER: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)
This public interest litigation has been filed for the following reliefs:
“…this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or otherwise declaring (1) that Article 3 of the Constitution of India is violating the basic structure and preamble of the Constitution of India apart from inconsistent with other provisions of the Constitution of India, particularly Part 3 of the Constitution of India and quash and set aside the same or alternatively declare the Constitutional (V Amendment) Act, 1955 insofar as it relates to not ascertaining the views from the State Legislature pertaining to provisions proposed in the draft bill sent to the State Assembly in pursuance of recommendation made by the President as well as prescribing time to express views pertaining to proposed bill as well as provision of bill is concerned as violating the basic structure and preamble of the Constitution of India and against the democratic and federal principles envisaged in the Constitution of India and quash and set aside the same; (2) restrain the Union of India from initiating any action in pursuance of Article 3 of the Constitution of India for bifurcation of State of Andhra Pradesh and formation of new State of Telangana without enacting any law or even issuing any executive instructions prescribing criterion, modalities and guidelines for exercising power under Article 3 of the Constitution of India or alternatively direct the Union of India to consider for making any legislation or issuing executive instructions prescribing guidelines, modalities for exercising power under Article 3 of the Constitution of India, particularly forming new States before initiating any action under Article 3 of the Constitution of India for bifurcation of State of Andhra Pradesh; (3) issue direction to the effect that as long as Article 371-D is in force, the Union of India is not having any authority or power to exercise power under Article 3 of the Constitution of India for bifurcation of existing State of A.P., and forming proposed new State of Telangana; (4) also declare that restraining the present H.E. President of India from exercising constitutional power available under Article 3 of the Constitution of India in pursuance of any recommendation made by the Union Cabinet regarding bifurcation of State of Andhra Pradesh and forming new State of Telangana and (5) restraining all the non-official respondents from conducting any agitations, strikes, bundhs etc., either for bifurcation of State of Andhra Pradesh or opposing the same and pass such other order or orders as it deems fit and proper.”
2. Basically there are four portions in the writ petition, going by the above prayer portion. First one is essentially challenge to the vires of Article 3 of the Constitution of India on the ground that it purports to hit to the basic structure and preamble and inconsistent with Part III of the Constitution of India. Alternatively, second prayer is to declare the Constitutional (Fifth Amendment) Act, 1955 by which a proviso has been added to Article 3, which according to petitioner is constitutionally invalid as it is violative of basic structure and preamble of the Constitution of India. The third prayer is that Union of India should be restrained from initiating any action in pursuance of Article 3 of the Constitution of India for bifurcation of State of Andhra Pradesh and formation of new State of Telangana without enacting any law or even issuing any executive instructions prescribing criterion, modalities and guidelines for exercising power under Article 3 of the Constitution of India. The fourth prayer is against unofficial respondents from conducting any agitations, strikes, bundhs etc., either for bifurcation of State of Andhra Pradesh or opposing the same.
3. As far as the fourth and last prayer is concerned, we think that this Court can consider the same and writ petition may be kept pending. However, for other prayers, we are of the view that this petition cannot be admitted for hearing.
4. Extensive arguments were advanced by the petitioner, who happens to be a Lawyer of this Court. He contends that vires of Article 3 of the Constitution of India itself can be adjudged by the Court following the theory of basic structure of Constitution. This issue is first of its kind and therefore he says that it should be decided by the Court. Therefore, we venture to decide the same.
5. The basic structure theory is not expressly provided in the Constitution and it was explained by the judicial pronouncements for the first time by the Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala[1][1]. The then Chief Justice Sikri, while presiding over the Bench, in paragraph 302 of the report, has broadly and without exhaustively, illustrated what is the basic structure. We just simply quote the language of His Lordships and we produce the same hereunder:
“The basic structure may be said to consist of the following features.
(1) Supremacy of the Constitution;
(2) Republican and Democratic forms of Government;
(3) Secular character of the Constitution;
(4) Separation of powers between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary;
(5) Federal character of the Constitution.”
6. Thereafter, in a series of decisions, the basic structure theory has been followed, adopted and applied. The observations of the Chief Justice in paragraph 302 of the report are very relevant for this Court and we quote the observations.
“The learned Attorney-General said that every provision of the Constitution is essential; otherwise it would not have been put in the Constitution. This is true.”
(emphasis supplied)
But, this does not have any place over provisions of the Constitution in the same position. The true position is that a provision of the Constitution can be amended abridged provided basic structure of the Constitution in reserve and remain the same.
Thus, it is absolutely clear that original provision of the Constitution, as it was, is not liable to be challenged under any circumstances. However, subsequent amendment of the Constitution obviously is susceptible to challenge. Therefore, provision of Article 3 of the Constitution of India originally cannot be touched by this Court, taking cue of the aforesaid observation. According to us there has been sound logic of holding so as it is settled position legally that legislations can be challenged on the ground as follows:-
In case of enactment intending to amend any provision of Constitution it can be challenged only on the ground if the same violates basic structure of Constitution. Any supreme legislation can be challenged on the ground of legislative competency and violation of Constitutional provision vide State of A.P. vs. Mc. Dowell & Company[2][2]. In case of Subordinate legislation in addition to the above grounds it can be challenged on the ground of transgression of Act under which subordinate legislation has been made. There is no ground available to challenge original provision of the Constitution. In other words no original provision can be struck down by Court relying on some other constitutional provision. If any original provision is required to be deleted it can be done by lawful exercise of amending power of the Constitution by the Parliament under Article 368 of the Constitution of India.
7. Even if we take the submission of the petitioner whether the aforesaid Article 3 itself hit any basic structure theory of the Constitution, we are of the view ‘No’, for the simple reason that Article 3 has been designed in such a way that enables the Parliament essentially to maintain the concept of federalism as Article 3 provides for separating or joining for reorganization of the States. Therefore, one of the basic structure, namely, federal character of the Constitution is reserved by Article 3 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, by any stretch of imagination the aforesaid Article cannot be said to be violating the basic structure, even if we assume that it is liable to be challenged. We, therefore, hold that the challenge to the vires of Article 3 of the Constitution of India on the ground that it purports to hit the basic structure of the Constitution of India, has no merit.
8. Coming to the issue of amendment to the Constitution, now it is well settled that no argument can be accepted that Parliament has no power to amend any part of the Constitution, as it appears from Article 368 of the Constitution. Therefore, the competency of the Parliament cannot be doubted, as the power has been given to the Parliament and Parliament alone by the Constituent Assembly. However, the power has to be exercised in the way as has been explained by the Supreme Court in a number of cases, as far as amendment of the Constitution is concerned. In this regard, previously in I.G. Golaknath v. State of Punjab[3][3] one view was taken and thereafter the said view has been reviewed by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati case (supra). We do not mention what was held by the Supreme Court in the Golaknath case (supra) as the view therein is no longer a good view because of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Kesavananda Bharati case (supra), which was later followed by the Supreme Court and High Courts also. It has been ruled that the Parliament cannot amend a provision of the Constitution so as to take away or abridge any portion of the basic structure of the Constitution. Therefore, any amendment not intending to touch the basic structure of the Constitution is possible. This position of law has been followed and reiterated in Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Naraiin[4][4], Minerva Mills v. Union of India[5][5], S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India[6][6], L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India[7][7] and in I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamilnadu[8][8]. In the context of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, we have to examine whether the Constitutional amendment of Article 3 which is challenged is hitting the basic structure of the Constitution.
9. Article 3 of the Constitution reads as follows.
3. Formation of new States and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing States.—Parliament may by law—
(a) form a new State by separation of territory from any State or by uniting two or more States or parts of States or by uniting any territory to a part of any State;
(b) increase the area of any State;
(c) diminish the area of any State;
(d) alter the boundaries of any State;
(e) alter the name of any State:
Provided that no Bill for the purpose shall be introduced in either House of Parliament except on the recommendation of the President and unless, where the proposal contained in the Bill affects the area, boundaries or name of any of the States, the Bill has been referred by the President to the Legislature of that State for expressing its views thereon within such period as may be specified in the reference or within such further period as the President may allow and the period so specified or allowed has expired.
Explanation I.—In this article, in clauses (a) to (e), “State” includes a Union territory, but in the proviso, “State” does not include a Union territory.
Explanation II.—The power conferred on Parliament by clause (a) includes the power to form a new State or Union territory by uniting a part of any State or Union territory to any other State or Union territory.”
Article 3 in our view has empowered Parliament to regulate and preserve Federalism as enshrined in the Constitution. In that sense, it is one part of basic structure of the Constitution. On `a plain reading of the proviso, it appears that with the insertion thereof, the Legislature has merely made a provision regarding methodology with regard to formation of new States and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing States. According to us, with the insertion of the aforesaid proviso, no portion of the Constitution, much less any portion which relatable to basic structure, has been affected. It provided the following mechanism. A Bill has to be prepared for any of the purposes as above for introducing in either house of the Parliament on the recommendation of His Excellency the President and again if the proposal contained in the Bill affects the area, boundaries or name of any of the States, the Bill has to be referred by His Excellency the President to the Legislature of that State for expressing its views thereon within such period as may be specified in the reference or within such further period as the President may allow and the period so specified or allowed has expired. Therefore, while making reference in ascertaining the views of State legislature before recommending the introduction of bill in Parliament by His Excellency, the President, the time has to be fixed for expressing the views. In our opinion, this safeguard measure has been provided by inserting the proviso in order to avoid any complaint of exercise of unbridled power of Parliament. According to us, the recommendation of the President and obtaining views of the State legislature concerned are sought to be made an essential part of this exercise of Parliament. This has not been left with Parliament alone and it has been made collective participation of Constitutional Authorities. This Court cannot review and rethink or probe into the mind of the Legislature, simply because it is not within the jurisdiction of this Court. It is for the Parliament and the Parliament alone can think of it with compliance as above. We are of the view that recommendation of President and obtaining views of State concerned are sine qua non (See Babulal Parate v. The State of Bombay[9][9]). Anything short of these two, exercise of Parliament can be judicially reviewed by the Constitution Court. We rather hold, providing this machinery before introduction of the Bill to give effect to Article 3, is absolutely scientific and logical. His Excellency the President of India being de jure Head of the country, is Constitutionally deemed to be a wisest citizen of the country and he can with his experience think whether any recommendation should be given or not.
Accordingly, we hold that this amendment does not hit any portion of basic structure of the Constitution of India and the same is valid.
10. The next portion of the prayer is that the Union of India be restrained from initiating any action in pursuance of Article 3 of the Constitution of India for bifurcation of State of Andhra Pradesh and formation of a new State of Telangana, without enacting any law.
11. This prayer, in our view, cannot be entertained by this Court because the action for creation or bifurcation of any State has to be made within the provisions of Article 3 of the Constitution of India. A specific mechanism has been provided therein. Article 3 of the Constitution of India provides for preparation of a Bill. Therefore, a Bill has to be prepared by the concerned Ministry as per the procedure of legislative business. How the Court can restrain the Union of India which is responsible for preparation of the Bill from acting under the Constitution, is beyond our comprehension. Such an order cannot be passed by this Court following the one of the basic structure of the Constitution, namely separation of power. It is the supreme power of the Parliament which has been given by the Constitution to act under Article 3 of Constitution of India as judiciary and executive can act within their own fields to the mutual exclusion of others, meaning thereby neither judiciary nor executive can create any new State. Therefore, this Court cannot pass such an order. It is too early to say in which manner and how this has to be done. Nothing has been stated in the petition that anyone is proceeding contrary to the provisions of Article 3 of the Constitution of India. Direction sought against Union of India is to consider for making any legislation or issuing executive instructions prescribing guidelines, modalities for exercising power under Article 3 of the Constitution of India, particularly forming new States before initiating any action under Article 3 of the Constitution of India for bifurcation of State of Andhra Pradesh. We think that in which way the Parliament will proceed in the matter and Union of India will proceed in the matter cannot be told by anyone and it is for the Union of India, then Parliament, President of India and lastly the State Legislature. They can proceed in their own way. The Court cannot give any direction. Whether the modalities and guidelines could be prepared first, thereafter Bill should be introduced or vice versa, is not for the Court to give direction. It is for them to take action. Therefore, such prayer cannot be entertained by this Court.
12. A direction was sought that as long as Article 371-D is in force, the Union of India is not having any authority or power to exercise power under Article 3 of the Constitution of India for bifurcation of existing State of Andhra Pradesh and forming proposed new State of Telangana.
On this prayer much argument has been advanced by the petitioner saying that Article 371-D is a special provision and it overrides any other provision of the Constitution of India. In the context of this submission, we feel that provisions of Article 371D of the Constitution of India are required to be reproduced:
“371-D. Special provisions with respect to the State of Andhra Pradesh –
(1) The president may by order made with respect to the State of Andhra Pradesh provide, having regard to the requirements of the State as a whole, for equitable opportunities and facilities for the people belonging to different parts of State, in the matter of public employment and in the matter of education, and different provisions may be made for various parts of the State
(2) An order made under clause (1) may, in particular, –
(a) require the State Government to organise any class or classes of posts in a civil service of, or any class or classes of civil posts under, the State into different local cadres for different parts of the State and allot in accordance with such principle and procedure as may be specified in the order the persons holding such posts to the local cadres so organised;
(b) specify any part or parts of the State which shall be regarded as the local area.-
(i) for direct recruitment to posts in any local cadre (whether organised in pursuance of an order under this article or constituted otherwise) under the State Government;
(ii) for direct recruitment to posts in any cadre under any local authority within the State; and
(iii) for the purposes of admission to any University within the State or to any other educational institution which is subject to the control of the State Government;
(c) specify the extent to which, the manner in which and the conditions subject to which, preference or reservation shall be given or made –
(i) in the matter of direct recruitment to posts in any such cadre referred to in sub-clause (b) as may be specified in this behalf in the order;
(ii) in the matter of admission to any such University or other educational institution referred to in sub-clause (b) as may be specified in this behalf in the order,
to or in favour of candidates who have resided or studied for any period specified in the order in the local area in respect of such cadre, University or other educational institution, as the case may be.
(3) The President may, by order, provide for the constitution of an Administrative Tribunal for the State of Andhra Pradesh to exercise such jurisdiction, powers and authority [including any jurisdiction, power and authority which immediately before the commencement of the Constitution (Thirty-second Amendment) Act, 1973 , was exercisable by any court (other than the Supreme Court) or by any tribunal or other authority] as may be specified in the order with respect to the following matters, namely:
(a) appointment, allotment or promotion to such class or classes of posts in any civil service of the State, or to such class or classes of civil posts under the State, or to such class or classes of posts under the control of any local authority within the State, as may be specified in the order;
(b) seniority of persons appointed, allotted or promoted to such class or classes of posts in any civil service of the State, or to such class or classes of civil posts under the State, or to such class or classes of posts under the control of any local authority within the State, as may be specified in the order;
(c) such other conditions of service of persons appointed, allotted or promoted to such class or classes of civil posts in any civil services of the State or to such class or classes of civil posts under State or to such class or classes of posts under the control of any local authority within the State, as may be specified in the order.
(4) An order made under clause (3) may –
(a) authorise the Administrative Tribunal to receive representations for the redress of grievances relating to any matter within its jurisdiction as the President may specify in the order and to make such orders thereon as the Administrative Tribunal deems fit;
(b) contain such provisions with respect to the powers and authorities and procedure of the Administrative Tribunal (including provisions with respect to the powers of the Administrative Tribunal to punish for contempt of itself) as the President may deem necessary;
(c) provide for the transfer of the Administrative Tribunal of such classes of proceedings, being proceedings relating to matters within its jurisdiction and pending before any court (other than the Supreme Court) or tribunal or other authority immediately before the commencement of such order, as may be specified in the order;
(d) contain such supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions (including provisions as to fees and as to limitation, evidence or for the application of any law for the time being in force subject to any exceptions or modifications) as the President may deem necessary.
(5) The order of the Administrative Tribunal finally disposing of any case shall become effective upon its confirmation by the State Government or on the expiry of three months from the date on which the order is made, whichever is earlier:
Provided that the State Government may, by special order made in writing and for reasons to be specified therein, modify or annul any order of the Administrative Tribunal before it becomes effective and in such a case, the order of the Administrative Tribunal shall have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be.
(6) Every special order made by the State Government under the proviso to clause (5) shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before both Houses of the State Legislature.
(7) The High Court for the State shall not have any powers of superintendence over the Administrative Tribunal and no court (other than the Supreme Court) or tribunal shall exercise any jurisdiction, power or authority in respect of any matter subject to the jurisdiction, power or authority of, or in relation to, the Administrative Tribunal.
(8) If the President is satisfied that the continued existence of the Administrative Tribunal is not necessary, the President may by order abolish the Administrative Tribunal and make such provisions in such order as he may deem fit for the transfer and disposal of cases pending before the Tribunal immediately before such abolition.
(9) Notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court, tribunal or other authority, -(a) no appointment, posting, promotion or transfer of any person –
(i) made before the 1st day of November, 1956, to any post under the Government of, or any local authority within, the State of Hyderabad as it existed before that date; or
(ii) made before the commencement of the Constitution (Thirty- second Amendment) Act, 1973 , to any post under the Government of, or any local or other authority within, the State of Andhra Pradesh; and
(b) no action taken or thing done by or before any person referred to in sub-clause (a),
shall be deemed to be illegal or void or ever to have become illegal or void merely on the ground that the appointment, posting, promotion or transfer of such person was not made in accordance with any law, then in force, providing for any requirement as to residence within the State of Hyderabad or, as the case may be, within any part of the State of Andhra Pradesh, in respect of such appointment, posting, promotion or transfer.
(10) The provisions of this article and of any order made by the President thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything in any other provision of this Constitution or in any other law for the time being in force.”
13. The object of enacting this provision was two fold in view of decision in Chief Justice of A.P. vs. LVA Dikshitulu[10][10], (i) to promote accelerated development of backward areas of the State of A.P. so as to secure the balanced development of the State as a whole; (ii) to provide equitable opportunities to different areas of the State in the matter of education, employment and career prospects in Public Service. On a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it appears that the Special Provision has been made in order to give a special privilege to the State of Andhra Pradesh and it does not transpire to us that this is intended to give any overriding effect over other provisions of the Constitution. However, we find in clause (10) there is a mention that the provisions of this article and of any order made by the President thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything in any other provision of this Constitution or in any other law for the time being in force.
14. Therefore, according to us, subject matter of this Article will have the overriding effect over similar or corresponding subject matter of any provision of Constitution or laws. For example, provisions of Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In other words, it will have overriding effect in the same area and field and not in different field. This Article has been designed for reservation with regard to employment opportunities, admission in educational institutions etc., and this provision is special in nature and even any contrary judgment, which was in existence, will not have any effect.
15. Article 14 which is in part III of the Constitution of India, provides for equality and Article 16 also provides for equality with regard to employment. Obviously, this provision (Article 371-D) may run counter to Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. We are not examining the same, as it is not the issue before us. How far Article 371D of the Constitution of India, which has been brought into existence by way of amendment, can stand to the test of theory of basic structure is also debatable. We, for the time being, apply the provision as it is. According to us, this provision does not have any nexus as to the subject matter of Article 3 of the Constitution of India, which operates in different field, question of overriding effect or inconsistency as argued does not arise. It would have applied had it been in the same field and subject.
16. The petitioner submits that in the event the State is bifurcated in exercise of power of Article 3 of the Constitution of India, then the object as enshrined in Article 371D will be frustrated and rendered nugatory. We do not find any merit in this submission. We are of the view that the whole object of introducing this Article is to provide safeguard measures in the interest of the region of Andhra Pradesh. In the event the State of Andhra Pradesh is bifurcated by the Parliament, ultimately, it is for the Parliament to take measures for reframing the same provision with suitable amendment or deleting altogether. It is consequential measure, if necessary. It is not for the Court to say. Obviously, His Excellency President of India and all organs of State concerned will certainly look into this matter and it is their anxiety and they will act and no one can presume that the Parliament or His Excellency President or State Assembly will act unconstitutionally. The presumption is otherwise. It is too early to complain anything in this regard, at this stage. We are of the view that Article 3 of the Constitution operates in a different field and for different purpose and there is no nexus even remotely with each other. Even, they have no quarrel with each other. We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention of the petitioner.
17. The petitioner then argued that so long as Article 371-D is in force, no steps can be taken under Article 3 of the Constitution for forming a new State. Such argument is absolutely absurd. As we have already indicated that Article 3 operates in one particular field and this power is originally given by the framers of the Constitution to the Parliament by the Constituent Assembly and such power cannot be abrogated or cannot be put on hold at the instance of any citizen of India. Accordingly, we are unable to accept this contention that operation of Article 3 will remain suspended so long as Article 371-D is in force and is not amended. It is an absurd proposition suggested by the petitioner.
18. The next prayer is for restraining His Excellency the President of India from exercising Constitutional power available under Article 3 of the Constitution of India, in pursuance of any recommendation made by the Union Cabinet regarding bifurcation of State of Andhra Pradesh and forming new State of Telangana. We think this prayer cannot be entertained by the Court at all, as it is an absolute constitutional power of the President, as enshrined in the Constitution. His Excellency, the President of India can under no circumstances be restrained by any Court of law and not even by Parliament or Executive as such provision has to be made operative. His Excellency, the President of India is absolutely free to act in terms of the provisions of Article 3 of the Constitution of India. Whether His Excellency will recommend or will not recommend or while taking steps for recommendation what measures His Excellency will take, is his own power. Whether His Excellency, President will act on his own or would be advised by anybody, it is for the President of India to decide and for this reason, at the moment, we do not have any material or ground to examine this matter. Besides, this is not an issue at all to be adjudicated by us. Under the law, no Court can restrain any person from exercising the lawful power, much less constitutional power. Therefore, this prayer cannot be entertained at all.
19. With regard to the last prayer for a direction against strikes and bandhs, the petitioner submits that elaborate and extensive grounds are not made with regard to the prayer and hence he will file a comprehensive petition against the issue of agitation and strikes and the prayer in relation thereto. Therefore, we permit him to do so in accordance with law and as may be advised.
20. In view of the foregoing discussion, we dismiss the Public Interest Litigation, except to the extent of the prayer portion indicated above to which we permitted the petitioner to file a comprehensive petition. K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ, K.C. BHANU, J, 8.10.2013
________________________________________
[1][1] AIR 1973 SC 1461
[2][2] AIR 1996 SC 1627
[3][3] AIR 1967 SC 1643
[4][4] AIR 1975 SC 2299
[5][5] AIR 1980 SC 1789
[6][6] AIR 1987 SC 386
[7][7] AIR 1997 SC 1125
[8][8] (2007) 2 SCC 1
[9][9] AIR 1960 SC 51
[10][10] AIR 1979 SC 193