Copy of Writ Petition for Unified Police Association

In the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow

Writ petition No-              of 2013 (M/B)

Amitabh Thakur, IPS                                                                 Petitioner

Versus

State of UP and another                                                             Respondents

Index

S No	Description of documents relied upon		Page No
		From	To
1.	List of Dates and Events (separate)	Separate
2.	Memo of Writ Petition
3.	Annexure No 1 Copy of the impugned order dated 15/10/2013 passed by the State of Uttar Pradesh
4.	Annexure No 2 Copy of the representation dated 12/12/2011
5.	Annexure No 3 Copy of the representation dated 11/12/2012
6.	Annexure No 4 Copy of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench orders in WP No 6470 of 2012 (M/B), 9173 of 2012 (M/B) and 6436 of 2013 (M/B)
7.	Annexure No 5 Copy of the Paras from UP Police Regulation
8.	Photo Identity of the Petitioner
9.	Affidavit

Lucknow                                                                 Amitabh Thakur
Dated-       /11/2013                                           Petitioner in Person
                                                                                    # 94155-34526

In the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow

Writ petition No-              of 2013 (M/B)

Amitabh Thakur, IPS                                                                  Petitioner

Versus

State of UP and another                                                             Respondents

LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS

S No               Date                                                   Event                       

1.        12/12/2011                      Petitioner sends representation to the

                                                            Respondents requesting for granting
                                                            Permission under section 3(1) of the
                                                            Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Act
2.        11/12/2012                      Representation as regards UP IPS and
                                                            UP PPS Associations

3.        2012-03                              Petitioner sent many representations
4.        15/10/2013                      Respondent No 1 decides the petitioner’s
                                                            representations
5.        30/10/2013                      Petitioner sends a letter as regards the
                                                            impugned order

The petitioner sent a representation dated 12/12/2011 for granting sanction under the provisions of Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Act 1968 for formation of a Unified Police Association and getting it registered as Uttar Pradesh Police Association. He also sent a representation dated 11/12/2012 as regards UP IPS and PPS Association, in consequence of the order of the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition No 9173 of 2012 (M/B) where he made certain prayers as regards these two Associations.

These matters kept pending for months and all the above representations were finally decided by the respondent No 1, the State of Uttar Pradesh through its order dated 15/10/2013.
The petitioner finds the above impugned order completely incorrect and bad in the eyes of laws for the reasons to be explained in great details in the Writ Petition and though he did send a letter dated 30/10/2013 as regards the points of disagreement regarding this impugned order, later he decided that instead of waiting for a still longer period, he should immediately prefer a Writ Petition challenging this order. Hence this Writ Petition.

Lucknow                                                                 Amitabh Thakur
Dated-        /11/2013                                          Petitioner in Person
                                                                                    # 94155-34526

In the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow

Writ petition No-              of 2013 (M/B)

Amitabh Thakur, IPS, aged about 45 years, son of Sri T N Thakur r/o 5/426, Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow  ------               Petitioner

Versus

1.                 State of Uttar Pradesh through the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow

2.                 Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, Tilak Marg, Lucknow                                                            ------------      Respondents

Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

To,

The Hon’ble Chief Justice and His other Hon’ble companion Judges of the aforesaid Court:

The humble petition of the above named petitioners most respectfully begs to submit as under

1.     That by means of this petition being filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction vested in this Hon’ble Court praying before this Hon’ble Court to kindly issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 15/10/2013 (Annexure No 1) passed by respondent No 1, State of Uttar Pradesh as regards petitioner’s representation dated 12/12/2011 (Annexure No 2) and subsequent reminder letters praying for grant of sanction for the formation and registration of a Unified Uttar Pradesh Police Association under section 3(1) of the Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Act 1966 (Restriction Act, for short) as being a completely incoherent and non-speaking order passed without any definite reason and logic and as regards petitioner’s representation dated 11/12/2012 (Annexure No 3) and subsequent reminder letters about the UP IPS Association and the UP PPS Association as being incorrect and inappropriate, on many accounts as being enumerated in this Writ Petition. The petitioner accordingly prays before this Hon’ble Court to issue a writ of mandamus to the respondents to grant permission to the petitioner to form and get registered a Unified Uttar Pradesh Police Association under section 3(1) of the Restriction Act as being prayed by the petitioner through his representation dated 12/12/2011 (Annexure No 2) and all the subsequent reminders.

The petitioner declares that he had filed a Writ Petition No 6470/2012 (M/B) before this Hon’ble Court to direct the concerned respondents to take a reasoned decision, as per the provisions of law, about his representations for granting permission for a Unified Uttar Pradesh Police Association under section 3(1) of the Restriction Act, which this Hon’ble Court dismissed as withdrawn through its order dated 07/08/2012. The petitioner had filed another writ Petition No 9173/2012 (M/B) praying to issue a writ of Mandamus to the concerned authorities to ensure that all the activities of the UP IPS Association and the UP PPS Association are stopped immediately, as being against the provisions of section 3 (1) of the Restriction Act where this Hon’ble Court through its order dated 10/12/2012 ordered that it was unable to grant any relief to the petitioner and the writ petition is dismissed, though if petitioner had any grievance against the Uttar Pradesh I.P.S. Association, he might approach concerned authorities for appropriate decision/action in accordance with law. The petitioner had also presented a third Writ petition No-     6436 of 2013 (M/B) where he had once again prayed to issue a writ of Mandamus for taking a reasoned and suitable decision, within a stipulated time, about formation of a Unified Uttar Pradesh Police Association which this Hon’ble Court dismissed through its order dated 06/09/2013 as being second Writ petition on the same subject without liberty to file fresh petition.

The petitioner also submits that he has not filed any other Writ petition before the Hon’ble Court either at Allahabad or its Lucknow bench pertaining to the subject matter and/ or for the relief prayed for in the instant writ petition and it is further declared that in respect of the same subject, no caveat notice has been received by the petitioner.

A copy of the impugned order dated 15/10/2013 passed by the Home Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh is being attached as Annexure No 1 while the original representation dated 12/12/2011 for formation of a unified Police Association presented by the petitioner before the respondents is being attached as Annexure No 2. The representation dated 11/12/2012 as regards certain prayers about the UP IPS and UP PPS Association is being attached as Annexure No 3. The orders of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench in above-mentioned WP No 6470 of 2012 (M/B) dated 07/08/2012, 9173 of 2012 (M/B) dated 10/12/2012 and 6436 of 2013 (M/B) dated     are being attached as Annexure No 4.

2.     That the petitioner is an officer of the Indian Police Service belonging to the 1992 batch, presently posted as Commandant. 20^th Battalion, PAC, Azamgarh. He is personally concerned as regards the service conditions of the police personnel and the possible ways of redressal. The petitioner strongly feels that today there is a great need for a Uttar Pradesh Police Association comprising of all ranks and files, right from the Director Generals of Police at the top to the Constables at the bottom. From whatever learning and experience the petitioner had during the last 21 years of service in the Police Department and from whatever expose and learning he had as a Fellow in Human Resource management at Indian Institute of Management Luckow or during the Mid Career Training Program (MCTP course) at Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel National Police Academy, Hyderabad and abroad in United Kingdom in the year 2011, he has got more and more convinced that there is a need to have a completely new rethinking as regards the culture prevailing in the various Police Organizations all over the country. These include giving the special emphasis on the benefits, facilities and comforts to the subordinate staff, popularly known as Constabulary and to hugely reduce the power distance as prevailing between the upper and lower police hierarchy. From the results of a large number of academic researches the need and necessity of Professional Associations have been brought up. These researches have brought the fact that the Professional associations simultaneously act as a suitable bridge and much-needed intermediary between the professional people and the public at large and they also act as important Mediators of the Innovation Process. Based on the facts brought forth by research articles like “Professional Associations as Important Mediators of the Innovation Process” by Sue Newell and Jacky Swan from the University of Warwick,  “Theorizing change: The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields” by Greenwood, R Suddaby et al from the Academy of management journal, 2002, “Professionalization of Public Administration” by Donald E. Klingner, Florida International University, USA and others, the petitioner came to a definite conclusion that such Professional Associations increasingly provide an essential forum for “the formulation and reproduction of shared meanings and understandings” During the petitioner’s interaction with British, American, Finnish, Australian and other foreign police officials at the National Police Academy, Hyderabad and his visit to the United Kingdom, this belief got further crystallized. 

3.      That but in India, Article 33 of the Constitution of India related with Power of Parliament to modify the rights conferred by this Part in their application etc says that Parliament may, by law, determine to what extent any of the rights conferred by this Part shall, in their application to the members of the Armed Forces; or   the members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order; or employed for purposes of intelligence or counter intelligence etc. be restricted or abrogated so as to ensure the proper discharge of their duties and the maintenance of discipline among them.

4.     That the Parliament of India using the power conferred under Article 33 of the Constitution promulgated the Restriction Act to provide for the restriction of certain rights to the members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order. Section 3 (1) of the Restriction Act says- “No member of, a police- force shall, without the express sanction of the Central Government or of the prescribed authority,-  (a) be a member of, or be associated in any way with, any trade union, labour union, political association or with any class of trade unions, labour unions or political associations; or (b) be a member of, or be associated in any way with, any other society, institution, association or organisation that is not recognised as part of the force of which he is a member or is not of a purely social, recreational or religious nature.”

5.     That since the petitioner strongly believes that the need today seems to have a Unified Police Association for all the ranks and file of Uttar Pradesh Police, right from the Director General of Police to the Class IV police personnel, hence he sent a representation dated 12/12/2011 (Annexure No 2) to the two Respondents praying to grant permission under section 3(1) of the Restriction Act for the formation of a Unified Police Association in Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner said in his representation that while presently there are Associations for the members of the Indian Police Service (IPS, for short) and the Provincial Police Service (PPS, for short) by the name of UP IPS Association and the UP PPS Association, there is no Association for the other members of the Uttar Pradesh Police, which is not proper. He wrote that he strongly believed that firstly there seems to be imminent need to have Association not only for the IPS and PPS officers but for all other members of the Uttar Pradesh Police. Secondly, the petitioner believes that at least at social and unofficial platforms like Service Associations, Police shall not arbitrarily be compartmentalized into small units like IPS Association, PPS Association, Non-gazetted officer Associations etc. If at all there have to be Police Associations in Uttar Pradesh Police, it should be unified and unitary in nature. This kind of division and differentiation seems to go against the fundamental concepts of Human Resource Management and Organization Behaviour. To him, Police is one organization, right from the Constable to the Director General of Police. They swim and sink together and no Police organization can dare perform to the optimum level when it believes in internal fissures and power-distances. With the above aims and objectives in our mind, he made this request before the respondents to kindly consider the matter and grant permission under the requisite provisions of law to form Uttar Pradesh Police Association, by whatever suitable and permissible name it is registered. 

6.     That this representation kept pending for months and the petitioner presented many subsequent representations and reminder letters, based mainly on the representation dated 12/12/2011.

7.     That where the respondents failed to take any decision on his representations, he filed the above mentioned Writ Petitions No 6470 of 2012 (M/B) and 6436 of 2013 (M/B) as mentioned above.

8.     That again as mentioned above, the petitioner also filed a Writ Petition No 9173 of 2012 (M/B) mainly as regards the UP IPS and UP PPS Association where this Hon’ble Court said through its order-“ If petitioner has any grievance against the Uttar Pradesh I.P.S. Association, as it exists today, he may approach concerned authorities for appropriate decision/action in accordance with law”, after which the petitioner sent his representation dated 11/12/2012 (Annexure No 3) as regards UP IPS and PPS Association where he prayed that if these Associations are in existence without the required sanction under the Restriction Act, then either a proper sanction be given to them or they shall be stopped from conducting their activities. He also prayed that if these two Associations do not take the required sanction as per law, then appropriate action might be taken against them.

9.     That all these representations kept pending for long and finally the respondent No 1 passed an Office order dated 15/10/2013 (Annexure No 1) whereby all the representations of the petitioner were decided.

10.                       That through this order, the respondent No 1 said that all the representations sent by the petitioner beginning with one dated 12/12/2011 and including 11/12/2012 were being decided

11.                       That the Office order said that the petitioner’s prayers for granting sanction under the Restriction Act for formation of a Unified Uttar Pradesh Police Association and getting it registered was forceless, without any merit and irrelevant and hence was being rejected.

12.                       That the Office order said that section 2(a) of the Restriction Act says that member of a police-force means any person appointed or enrolled under any enactment specified in the Schedule and at Item 3 of the Schedule to this Restriction Act is placed the Police Act of 1861.  Based on these facts, the respondent No 1 concluded that IPS and PPS officers in UP do not come in the purview of the Restriction Act because only those who have been recruited under section 2 of the Police Act come in the purview/control of the Restriction Act.

13.                       That the order also says that Central IPS Association is a registered society and it has its chapter in Uttar Pradesh, hence IPS Association is a recognized/duly sanctioned society on which the provisions of the Restriction Act do not get enforced.

14.                       That with humble request, it is kindly prayed that almost all the above conclusions made in the Government Order dated 15/10/2013 are erroneous and legally incorrect.   

15.                       That as stated earlier the Restriction Act has been passed in pursuance of the power conferred under Article 33 of the Constitution to provide for the restriction of certain rights to the members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order where its Preamble says- “An Act to provide for the restriction of certain rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution in their application to the members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order as to ensure the proper discharge of their duties and the maintenance of discipline among them.”

16.                       That section 2(a) of this Act says- "member of a police-force means any person appointed or enrolled under any enactment specified in the Schedule” while section 2(b) says- “Police-force includes any force charged with the maintenance of public order.”

17.                       That among the various Acts included in the Schedule to the Restriction Act is the Police Act, 1861 (5 of 1861).

18.                       That section 2 of the Police Act 1861 regarding Constitution of the force says- “The entire police-establishment under a State Government shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be one police-force and shall be formally enrolled; and shall consist of such number of officers and men, and shall be constituted in such manner, as shall from time to time be ordered by the State Government.  Subject to the provisions of this Act, the pay and all other conditions of service of members of the subordinate ranks of any police-force shall be such as may be determined by the State Government.”

19.                       That as per section 1 of the Police Act- “References to the subordinate ranks of a police-force shall be construed as references to members of that force below the rank of Deputy Superintendent.”

20.                       That section 4 of the Police Act says- “The administration of the police through-out a general police-district shall be vested in an officer to be styled the Inspector-General of Police, and in such Deputy Inspectors-General and Assistant Inspector-General, as the State Government shall deem fit.”

21.                       That the Government of Uttar Pradesh has framed the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations under the Police Act 1861.

22.                       That Para 397 and 398 in Chapter XXIX of these Police Regulations dealing with “Internal Administration” specifies the members of the Police Force in Uttar Pradesh. Para 397 says- “The Gazetted officers of the Force are- (1)Inspector General (b) Deputy Inspector Generals of Police  (c) Superintendents of Police   (d) Deputy Superintendents of Police” while Para 398 says- “The Non-Gazetted officers of the Force are- (1) Inspectors (b) Sub-Inspectors  (c) Head Constables   (d) Constables.” Para 399 of the UP Police Regulations says that the appointment of Superintendents and above rank of Police officers shall be done by the Governor-in-Council. Para 400 says-“Assistant Superintendents are ordinarily appointed on probation by Government of India on the result of competitive examinations held in India. They are confirmed by the Governor in Council.” Para 401 says-“The Rules regulating the appointment (whether by direct recruitment or by promotion from the rank of Inspector) of Deputy Superintendents of Police are contained in Government notification No O-337/II-444-40 dated 04/05/1942.” A copy of the above Para of the Police Regulations is attached as Annexure No 5.

23.                       That what the above facts, including the legal provisions enumerated from the Police Act 1861 and the UP Police Regulations conclude is that IPS officers working in the State of Uttar Pradesh are “members of Police Force” as specified in section 2(a) of the Restriction Act. Similarly, the PPS officers are also the “members of Police Force.”

24.                       That the naturally corollary to this fact is that the UP Cadre IPS officers and the PPS officers in UP are governed and regulated by the Restriction Act and hence as per section 3 (1) of this Act, they cannot form an Association which is not of a purely social, recreational or religious nature without the express sanction of the State government as the competent authority.

25.                       That despite this strict prohibition, UP IPS Association and UP PPS Association are there in existence. Interestingly while the respondent No 1 is silent as regards the PPS Association, regarding the IPS Association it says that UP IPS Association is a Chapter of the Central IPS Association and since the Central IPS Association is a registered society, hence it is a recognized body and thus there is no irregularity in its existence.

26.                        That on the contrary, it kindly needs to be noted that being a registered society and being a recognized Police Association under the provisions of Restriction Act are two entirely different facts. It would have been completely legal if the IPS and/or PPS officers did not come under the ambit of the Restriction Act, as being incorrectly deduced by the respondent No 1, regarding whose incorrectness the petitioner has already made detailed expostulations in the above Paras, and the IPS officers (and PPS officers) would not have needed any sanction under the Restriction Act as regards formation of a Police Association (IPS/PPS Association). But since, as explained above, the IPS and PPS officers are police officers as defined in section 2(a) of the Restriction Act, hence they need proper sanction of the competent authority before getting registered in any form and a mere registration without the due sanction is not only inappropriate, it is also manifestly illegal.

27.                       That it is also true that none of these two associations is of a purely social, recreational or religious nature. The nature of work taken up by these two Associations make it quite apparent that they work for the service related causes and issues of the IPS and PPS officers respectively. These Associations take up various issues of transfer, promotion, Cadre management, postings, Police Reforms and other matters related with their members and with policing in State of Uttar Pradesh, which makes it quite apparent that these two Associations are trade and service associations, having their concern for the wider aspects of Uttar Pradesh Police and policing in Uttar Pradesh as well.

28.                       That another fact is that while this order tries to explain why the IPS and PPS Associations are legal (howsoever incorrectly) but it states nothing about why the petitioner’s prayer for formation of a Unified Police Association and getting it duly registered has been found to be forceless and irrelevant. Thus this part of the order as regards prayer for a Unified Police Association is definitely a non-speaking order.

29.                       That thus the respondent No 1, while deciding the petitioner’s representation after a period of about 2 years has not given any single reason for why the petitioner’s prayer for formation of a Unified Police Association shall not be granted.

30.                       That while the respondent No 1 presents certain facts (albeit incorrect ones) to state why IPS and PPS officers can form associations without the sanction of the State government, they have not given a single reason in their order as regards why they cannot give permission for a unified Police Association.

31.                       That in Union Of India & Ors vs E.G. Nambudiri  (Equivalent citations: 1991 AIR 1216, 1991 SCR (2) 451) the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that-“It is true that the distinction between judicial act and administrative act has withered away and the principles of natural justice are now applied even to administrative orders which involve civil consequences, as held by this Court in State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei & Ors., [1967] 2 SCR 625” and that-“Now, there is no doubt that the principles of natural justice are applicable even to administrative inquiries. See: A.K. Kraipak & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1970] 1 SCR 457”. It also stated-“Though the principles of natural justice do not require reasons for decision, there is necessity for giving reasons in view of the expanding law of judicial review to enable the citizens to discover the reasoning behind the decision. Right to reasons is an indispensable part of a sound system of judicial review. Under our Constitution an administrative decision is subject to judicial review if it affects the right of a citizen, it is therefore desirable that reasons should be stated” and again that-“However, it does not mean that the administrative authority is at liberty to pass orders without there being any reasons for the same. In governmental functioning before any order is issued the matter is generally considered at various levels and the reasons and opinions are contained in the notes on the file. The reasons contained in the file enable the competent authority to formulate its opinion. If the order as communicated to the Government servant rejecting the representation does not contain any reasons, the order cannot be held to be bad in law. If such an order is challenged in a court of law it is always open to the competent authority to place the reasons before the Court which may have led to the rejection of the representation. it is always open to an administrative authority to produce evidence alinude before the court to justify its action.”

32.                       That in S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984, a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated: "An important consideration which has weighed with the court for holding that an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions must record the reasons for its decision, is that such a decision is subject to the appellate jurisdiction of this court under article 136 of the Constitution as well as the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Courts under article 227 of the Constitution and that the reasons, if recorded, would enable this court or the High Courts to effectively exercise the appellate or supervisory power. But this is not the sole consideration. The other considerations which have also weighed with the court in taking this view are that the requirement of recording reasons would (i) guarantee consideration by the authority; (ii) introduce clarity in the decisions; and (iii) minimize chances of arbitrariness in decision making. In this regard a distinction has been drawn between ordinary courts of law and tribunals and authorities exercising judicial functions on the ground that a judge is trained to look at things objectively uninfluenced by considerations of policy or expediency whereas an executive officer generally looks at things from the stand point of policy and expediency.”

33.                       That despite the above settled principle of law that any order, even by an administrative authority, shall as far as possible be speaking in nature, the order dated 15/10/2013 as regards refusing permission for formation of a unified Police Association is completely silent as regards the reasons for arriving at such a conclusion and thus comes as being bad in the eyes of law.

34.                       That as far as the petitioner can think, the respondent No 1 passed such a non-speaking order, without providing any reasons for denying permission for formation and registration of a Unified Police Association because they actually do not have any reason, logic, facts, basis, law or substance on which to base themselves.

35.                       That there is also a possibility that the reasons for refusing such permission might be there in the concerned files but since the same have not been presented in the order, hence as far as the etitioner is concerned, this order comes as a non-speaking and hence an arbitrary order, against the principles of natural justice.

36.                       That in case the respondents have any reasons in their official records associated with this particular matter for arriving at the decision that such a Unified Police Association is without force and is irrelevant and unreasonable, not worth being considered, they might present the reasons before this Hon’ble Court in their counter reply and in case any such reasons are produced, the petitioner is more than sure that he would be able to prove beyond any reasonable grounds that whatever reasons and logic (if any) are given, are incorrect and improper and do not hold the test of legal scrutiny.

37.                       That there is also a possibility that the official records associated with this matter as regards the petitioner’s representations do not have any reasons stated in them and in such a case, the order dated 15/10/2013 of the respondent No 2 as regards formation of Unified Police Association will become arbitrary and baseless at the very beginning.

38.                       That because of all the above reasons, the order dated 15/10/2013 passed by the respondent No 1 as regards the various representations, including those presented as Annexure No 1 and 2, sent by the petitioner is manifestly incorrect and illegal and it kindly needs to be quashed.

39.                       That the petitioner put forth his points of disagreement as regards the impugned order before the Respondent No 1 through his letter dated 30/10/2013 where he stated the various facts he has presented in this Writ Petition on why he completely disagrees with the impugned order and considers it a completely incorrect order. But it kindly needs to be noted that the impugned order dated 15/10/2013 is a final order of the State government and no statutory or legal appeal or representation lies against this order. Thus, even if the letter dated 30/10/2013 was sent by the petitioner, prima-facie it does not have any legal or statutory status. Moreover considering the importance of the matter and the fact that the respondents took more than 18 months to get the petitioner’s original representation dated 12/12/2011 decided, after having sent this letter dated 30/10/2013, the petitioner decided that instead of waiting for a still further long period of many months, the appropriate course of action he should adopt is to immediately move before this Hon’ble Court to get the impugned order quashed so that justice is finally delivered in this matter which the petitioner has been pursuing so diligently for months, without waiting for response, if any, from the respondents.

40.                       That the petitioner’s photograph and Identity proof have been enclosed along with

41.                       That having no any officious and effective alternative remedy in these circumstances, this writ petition is being filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the following amongst other grounds-

GROUNDS

(1)            Because the IPS and PPS officers are “members of the Police Force” as stated in Para 398-401 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulation and hence they can form any Association only after grant of legal sanction from Government, the competent authority, as required necessarily under section 3(1) of the Restriction Act

(2)             Because none of the UP IPS PPS Association have obtained the necessarily legal sanction under section 3(1) of the Restriction Act but are functional in clear defiance of the above Act

(3)            Because the State government has erred in its order dated 15/10/2013 about UP IPS and UP PPS Association on the above grounds

(4)            Because the State government has refused permission as regards Unified Police Association without providing any reason for the same

(5)            Because a non-reasoned and non-speaking order in administrative matters makes it bad in the eyes of law and the burden for proving that any reasons for arriving at the decision actually exists falls squarely upon the authority passing such an order and hence here it is expected from the respondents that they shall be producing the reasons (if any) for refusing permission for a Unified Police Association, which the petitioner is sure he shall be able to refute beyond any reasonable doubt through facts and logic in his rejoinder reply.

PRAYER

Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to-

(a)             Kindly issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 15/10/2013 (Annexure No 1) passed by respondent No 1, State of Uttar Pradesh as regards petitioner’s representation dated 12/12/2011 (Annexure No 2) and subsequent reminder letters praying for grant of sanction for the formation and registration of a Unified Uttar Pradesh Police Association as being a completely incoherent and non-speaking order devoid of any reason

(b)            Kindly issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 15/10/2013 as regards petitioner’s representation dated 11/12/2012 (Annexure No 3) and subsequent reminder letters about the UP IPS Association and the UP PPS Association as being incorrect and inappropriate, on many accounts as have been enumerated in this Writ Petition and to accordingly direct the respondents to act against these two associations in accordance with law.

(c)             kindly issue a writ of mandamus to the two respondents to grant permission to the petitioner to form and get registered a Unified Uttar Pradesh Police Association by the name of Uttar Pradesh Police Association under section 3(1) of the Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Act 1966 as being prayed by the petitioner through his representation dated 12/12/2011 (Annexure No 2) and all the subsequent reminders

(d)            any other order in favour of the petitioner’s cause, in the interest of justice, as this Hon’ble Court deems fit

Lucknow                                                                 Amitabh Thakur

Dated-        /11/2013                                          Petitioner in Person
                                                                                    # 94155-34526

In the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow

Writ petition No-              of 2013 (M/B)

Amitabh Thakur, IPS                                                                  Petitioner

Versus

State of UP and another                                                             Respondents

AFFIDAVIT

I, Amitabh Thakur, aged about 45 years, s/o Sri T N Thakur, r/o 5/426, Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, , religion- Hinduism, profession- Government service (Indian Police Service), Education- B Tech,  the deponent, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under-

1.     That the deponent is the sole petitioner in the above noted petition and as such he is fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case, deposed to hereunder.

2.     That the contents of the paragraphs 1

 of the Writ petition are true to my personal knowledge,

based on documents and records and believed to be true and

are based on legal advice.

3.     That all the Annexures No 1  to 5 attached with the Writ Petition are a true copy of their original ones

Place Lucknow                                                                  (Amitabh Thakur)

Date-                    /11/2013                                                        Deponent

VERIFICATION

I, the deponent above named, do hereby verify that the contents of paragraphs 1 to 3 above this Affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and belief. No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed. So, help me God

Signed and verified this the                             day of                                    2013  at Lucknow

Deponent

Identification

I identify the deponent, on the basis of records produced before me, who has signed before me.

                                    Advocate

Solemnly affirmed me on                                 at                                am/pm by the deponent Amitabh Thakur, who has been identified by Sri                                    clerk to Sri                                                                                                                                       , Advocate, high court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow

I have satisfied myself by examining the deponent that he understands the contents of this Affidavit which have been read over and explained to him by me

                                                                                    Oath Commissioner

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH

Court No. - 1
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 6470 of 2012

Petitioner :- Amitabh Thakur
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Home & Anr.
Petitioner Counsel :- Asok Pande,Rohit Tripathi,Tripuresh Tripathi
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Uma Nath Singh,J.
Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Dixit,J.
Order (Oral)
Learned counsel for petitioner prays for and is permitted to withdraw the writ petition.
Hence, it is dismissed as withdrawn.
Order Date :- 7.8.2012
Vijay

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH

Chief Justice's Court
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 9173 of 2012

Petitioner :- Amitabh Thakur
Respondent :- Uttar Pradesh Ips Association Through Secy.Lko.& Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Asok Pande,Tripuresh Tripathi
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Shiva Kirti Singh,Acting Chief Justice
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Arora,J.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the letters of the petitioner, contained in Annexure no. 5 series, we find that on account of certain differences with other I.P.S. Officers, who are members of Uttar Pradesh I.P.S. Association, the petitioner has resigned from the Association. The letters also disclose that petitioner wants establishment of a larger Association whose membership should not be confined only to I.P.S. Officers but should cover all the Police Officers.
In the facts of the case, this Court is unable to grant any relief to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
If petitioner has any grievance against the Uttar Pradesh I.P.S. Association, as it exits today, he may approach concerned authorities for appropriate decision/action in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 10.12.2012
Suresh/Tanveer/

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH

Court No. - 27
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 6436 of 2013

Petitioner :- Amitabh Thakur
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thr.The Prin.Secy.Home Deptt. Lucknow & Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Asok Pande,Rohit Tripathi,Tripuresh Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Devi Prasad Singh,J.
Hon'ble Ashok Pal Singh,J.
Petitioner appeared in person. Application for withdrawal of Vakalatnama is allowed.
Seen the report dated 14.8.2013 keeping in view the finding recorded by the Registrar. Let warning be issued to the officers concerned to be cautious in future. No further proceeding is required. Report submitted by the Registrar shall be kept with the record of this Court.
This is a second writ petition for the same relief. Earlier one bearing writ petition no. 6470 (MB) 2012 was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 7.8.2012 is withdrawn.
A perusal of the order dated 7.8.2012 reveals that no liberty was obtained by the petitioner or granted by this Court to prefer a fresh writ petition. Since, Division Bench has not granted any liberty to file a second writ petition, for the same cause of action writ petition is not maintainable in view of law settled by this Court vide 2013 (31) LCD 786, Khurkhur and another Vs. Union of India and others.
Accordingly writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.9.2013
Madhu