Jharkhand High Court
Mazdoor Sangathan Samiti Through ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(Cr.) No. 38 of 2018
Mazdoor Sangathan Samiti through its Secretary namely Baccha Babu
Singh, son of Upadhyay Singh, resident of Nisan Flat, Qr. No. HMD 50D,
PO&PS-Bokaro Thermal, District-Bokaro ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The General Secretary, Department of Home, Prisons and Disaster
Management, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa,
PO&PS-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand ... Respondents
-------
(Through V.C.)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Deepankar Roy, AC to AG
-------
Order No. 16/Dated: 11th February 2022
Mazdoor Sangathan Samiti is aggrieved of the Notification
dated 22nd December 2017 by which the Department of Home, Prisons and
Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand has declared it an unlawful
organisation under section 16 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1908.
2. In the writ petition a specific plea has been raised that no
material was placed before the competent Authority to establish that
Mazdoor Sangathan Samiti is frontal organisation of C.P.I (Maowadi) nor
any complaint was ever made against the Samiti that it was involved in any
extremist activity or propagating the cause of extremists.
3. At the outset, the Court records its displeasure the way this
matter has been prosecuted by the State. In the first place, complete facts are
not put on affidavit and secondly, inspite of opportunities granted affidavits
are not filed in time or not at all.
4. On 3rd May 2019, 14th June 2019 and 2nd August 2019 hearing
of this writ petition was adjourned on the request of the learned State
counsel for filing counter affidavit in the matter. Thereafter the writ petition
came on Board on several occasions and many times adjournments were
taken by the learned State counsel for seeking instructions in the matter.
5. Apart from that, it has come on record that the judgment in
W.P.(Cr.) No. 94 of 2018 on which the petitioner has placed reliance has
attained finality as the said order was not challenged by the State. At this
stage, it needs to be indicated that in the order dated 7 th February 2020 the
Court has recorded that atleast five adjournments were taken by the State
but the Court was not apprised what step was taken for challenging the
judgment in W.P.(Cr.) No. 94 of 2018.
6. In the counter-affidavit dated 3rd August 2019 filed on behalf of
the respondents, in paragraph no. 20, it is stated that a fresh notification was
issued vide Notification no. 124 dated 12 th February 2019 against Popular
Front of India in respect of which W.P.(Cr.) 94 of 2018 was filed. But
beyond that nothing has been stated by the State-respondents why reliance
placed by the petitioner on the judgment in W.P.(Cr.) No. 94 of 2018 is not
tenable. And, the plea raised by the petitioner that the order under section 16
of the Criminal Law Amendment Act was passed without issuing any notice
to it has not been controverted by the State-respondents. The learned State
counsel would take the Court through paragraph nos. 26, 27 and 30 of the
counter-affidavit.
7. In paragraph nos. 26 and 27 of the counter-affidavit, the
State-respondents have averred as under:
"26. That the Frontal Organization of the naxals as mentioned
above in the year 2008 Krantikari Kisan Committee, Nari Mukti
Sangh, Jharkhand Group Awam Krantikari Sanskritik Manch were
banned and they challenged their mode of operation and they
again formulated another Frontal Organisation in the name of
present petitioner's organization namely Mazdoor Sangathan
Samiti.
27. That thus from the above stated fact it is apparent that the
present petitioner in the name of Trade Union Act are not working
really for the Trade Union or for the trade dispute or for another
relationship between the employer and employee rather they are
providing frontal links and acting as a frontal organization for the
naxal activities."
8. In paragraph no. 30 of the counter-affidavit, the
State-respondents have stated thus:
"30. That the reason being so before giving para wise reply to the
writ application the point and issue involved in the present writ
application for invoking section 16 of the Criminal Law Amendment
Act against the present petitioner is as follows:
(i) The present petitioners are deeply engaged in unlawful
activities which are detrimental to the society and having a
threat as they are indulged in celebrating 50th anniversary of
Naxalbari Kisan Upsringing.
(ii) They are supporting Motilal Baske who was killed in
encounter by the police on 09.06.2017 in police station in
Giridih.
(iii) The members of the petitioner's organization have got
many criminal links and they are closely related with the
naxal movements and also to other naxal members Damodar
Turi who was arrested in Tamil Nadu in the year 2012.
(iv) The petitioner's organization is directly in touch with
Warwasa Rao who is an activist naxal supporter who belongs
to Andhra/Telangana."
9. This Court finds that except making the aforesaid statements in
the counter-affidavit no material has been produced by the State-respondents
to suggest that notification under section 16 of the Criminal Law
Amendment Law was issued on the basis of sufficient evidence against the
Samiti, that it is a frontal organisation of C.P.I (Maowadi) involved in
extremist activities and propagating the cause of naxalites.
10. In the aforesaid facts, this Court finds itself bound by the
judgment in W.P.(Cr.) No. 94 of 2018 which has attained finality.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussions, Notification dated
22nd December 2017 is quashed. W.P.(Cr.) No. 38 of 2018 is allowed,
however, with liberty to the State of Jharkhand that it may proceed in the
matter in accordance with law.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
Tanuj/
