Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard Sri Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
Railways, under its circular dated 9th February, 1960, has taken a decision that the railways land/premises shall not be issued by unrecognized unions for holding their meetings etc. The Joint Director (Establishment), Railways Board, New Delhi has written the letter dated 8th May, 1980 addressed to all the General Managers of All Indian Railways to ensure strict compliance of the said Board Circular.
Petitioner, before this Court, is an association of railway employees, but this association is admittedly not recognized by the Railways. There is no challenge to the decision of the Railways not to recognize the petitioner association. As a matter of fact there is nothing on record to establish that the petitioner ever made an application to the concerned Railways Authority for recognition of its association, as registered union or otherwise.
It appears that petitioner made an application for permission being granted to hold its meeting in railways building/property. Since the application so made by the petitioner was not being considered, he approached the High Court by means of writ petition no. 21268 of 2014, which was decided on 15th April, 2014 and by means of writ petition no. 32880 of 2014 decided under the order dated 19th June, 2014. The Railways Authorities were asked to consider the request of the petitioner.
Executive Director (Establishment), Ministry of Railways, New Delhi under the order dated 13th August, 2014 has informed the petitioner about the said decision of the Railways Board and has denied permission to hold a meeting/strikes over the railways land/premises. It is against this order that the present writ petition has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the petitioner association is not recognized by the railways as one of the registered union of employees of the railways, yet the railways cannot deny a right to the association to hold its meeting on railways premises/land. According to the petitioner this right flows from Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India and for the purpose he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kameshwar Prasad & Others vs. State of Bihar & Others, reported in AIR 1962 SC 1166 and in the case of O K Ghosh vs. S E X Joseph, reported in 1962 LawSuit (SC) 310/1963 AIR (SC) 812.
We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the records of the present writ petition.
So far as the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19 (1) of the Constitution of India to hold meeting and demonstration is concerned, law in that regard has been well settled under the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court. The Apex Court in the said judgments has also clearly provided that such right guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) and 19 (1) (b) of the Constitution of India is always subject to the reasonable restrictions, as may be imposed under Article 19 (2) and 19 (3) of the Constitution of India.
Under the order impugned, the right of the petitioner to hold meeting and to make demonstration has not been effected. What has been restrained is that such meetings may not be held in the premises of the railways and on its land, meaning thereby that the railways has decided not to permit use of its building for the purposes of meeting of a private association, which is not recognized by the railways. Since such restriction placed by the railways does not breach Article Article 19 (2) and 19 (3) of the Constitution of India and are in conformity thereof, the consequential order issued by the Executive Director (Establishment), Ministry of Railways, New Delhi dated 13th August, 2014 warrants no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Learned counsel for the petitioner then contended that restriction, which has been placed under the Board Circular dated 9th February, 1960, referred to above, is in respect of the meeting of the unions, which are not recognized and not in respect of the meeting of the associations like the petitioner.
The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner has only been stated to be rejected. What applies to an unrecognized union applies with full force to unrecognized association.
The present writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
(Arvind Kumar Mishra-, J.) (Arun Tandon, J.) Order Date :- 10.11.2014 Sushil/-