CWP No.20280 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.20280 of 2008 Date of Decision: 16 - 09- 2009 Court on its own motion ....Petitioner v. State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** Present: Mr.Randhir Singh, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. A call for stoppage of all vehicular traffic (Chakka Jam) is alleged to have led to the death of one Gainda Ram, as he could not be timely shifted to the hospital for necessary medical aid. A communication received through post from one Devki Nandan Gupta, resident of 106, Gita Bhawan, Preet Nagar, Ambala Cantt. complaining about the unfortunate incident was treated as a writ petition in public interest and notice issued to the State of Haryana. From the reply filed by Deputy Superintendent of CWP No.20280 of 2008 [2] Police, Ambala Cantt., it emerges that on 13.8.2008 at about 8.00 A.M., one Ramesh Chander son of Gainda Ram was taking his ailing father to Saket Hospital, Ambala Cantt, when near Tangri Bridge, falling within the jurisdiction of Police Station Mahesh Nagar, a mob comprising several leaders of Shiv Sena, Vishav Hindu Parishad and other members of political party, namely, BJP had stopped the passage and Ramesh Chander was not allowed to take his father to the hospital. Unable to undertake his journey to the hospital, Gainda Ram when brought to the hospital, was declared brought dead. In the additional affidavit filed, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ambala has stated that a case FIR No.165 dated 13.8.2008 has been registered at Police Station Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt. under Sections 148/149/2283/304-A IPC and 13 persons were arrested. He further submitted that a charge sheet has been filed in the Court of concerned Area Judicial Magistrate on 15.6.2009 and the case is now fixed for consideration of charge on 4.8.2009. It was pronounced by Hon'ble Apex Court in “Kamleshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar” AIR 1962 SC 1166 that the employees have no fundamental right to resort to strike and therefore, the Rule which prohibits strike was held valid. Similarly, in “Radhey Shyam Sharma v. Post Master General” AIR 1965 SC 311, Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the penalty imposed upon the employee, who proceeded on strike, holding that there is no fundamental right of the employee to go on strike. A Full Bench of Kerala High Court, in “Bharat Kumar K.Palicha v. State of Kerala” AIR 1997 Kerala 291, held as under: “17. No political party or organisation can claim that it is entitled to paralyse the industry and commerce in the entire CWP No.20280 of 2008 [3] State or nation and is entitled to prevent the citizens not in sympathy with its viewpoint, from exercising their fundamental rights or from performing their duties for their own benefit or for the benefit of the State or the nation. Such a claim would be unreasonable and could not be accepted as a legitimate exercise of a fundamental right by a political party or those comprising it.” The above said view of Kerala High Court was approved by Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Communist Party of India (M) v. Bharat Kumar” 1998(1) SCC 201, by holding as under: “3. ... ... ... ... There cannot be any doubt that the fundamental rights of the people as a whole cannot be subservient to the claim of fundamental right of an individual or only a section of the people. It is on the basis of this distinction that the High Court has rightly concluded that there cannot be any right to call or enforce a “Bandh” which interferes with the exercise of the fundamental freedoms of other citizens, in addition to causing national loss in many ways. We may also add that the reasoning given by the High Court, particularly those in paragraphs 12, 13 and 17 for the ultimate conclusion and directions in paragraph 18 is correct with which we are in agreement. ... ... ... ...” This view was further reiterated in “T.N. Rangarajan v. Government of T.N.” 2003 (6) SCC 581, wherein Their Lordships held that there is no moral or equitable justification for an employee to go on strike. From the above judicial pronouncements of Courts of law from time to time, it is evident that those who want to commute and undertake their journey cannot be forced or compelled to shelve off their travelling by CWP No.20280 of 2008 [4] the organisers who had given call for strike. Forcibly preventing the common man by the strikers is unlawful. It has been well recognised that resorting to such kind of strikes, the sufferer is society and the public at large. The Courts have often held that there cannot be any right to impose or enforce a bandh which interferes with the exercise of fundamental freedom of other citizens. Such a call of chakka jam, bandh or strike, not only causes national loss in many ways but as is depicted in the present case, has caused loss of precious life. During the course of arguments, Mr.Randhir Singh, Additional Advocate General, Haryana has ensured that in future law and order enforcing machinery will take necessary precaution and nobody will be allowed to forcibly restrain or compel any person who does not want to become part of strike or chakka jam. It is stated that District administration shall ensure free flow of traffic and such re-occurrence shall not take place. We are of the view that present writ petition can be disposed off, as by registration of case and submission of charge sheet, law has taken its own course against the erring participants of the chakka jam/bandh. Further more State has ensured that in future no such re-occurrence will take place. Therefore, no further directions are called for. ( T.S.THAKUR ) ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE September 16, 2009. RC/rps