Koshy, J.

All these petitions are filed in public interest annoyed by the fact that despite various judgments of this court and the Honourable Apex Court, there are frequent bandha, forced hartals and general articles in the State harassing general public causing trouble. Inconvenience loss and injury to them and a situation is created by unscrupulous anti-national and anti-people groups who force majority of the people not to move about and force them in illegal detention in their can house by threat, coercion and force. Examinations to be conducted by the Universities and Government agencies are being postponed on such days. Doctors who are going to the hospitals are being attached. Government transport corcporation themselves stop running their buses thus preventing the willing workers and employees from going to the work places. Previous experience on occasions of hartals and general strikes cast an obligation on the part of the Government to take preventive measures. It is the duty of the State and its instrumentalities and its officers to maintain discipline and order in accordance with the provisions of law. There is abdication of constitutional responsibility and dereliction of duty on the part of the Central and State Governments in not taking appropriate actions as directed by the decisions of this Court which were affirmed by the Supreme Court. It is also stated that State has not paid damages for the loss incurred by the public and no action is taken to recover damages caused to the property of the Government and public sector corporations.

2. There is no dispute regarding the legal aspects raised in these petitions. In Bharat Kumar V. State of Kerala (1997 (2) KLT 287) a Full Bench of this Court held that calling of a bandh and holding of it is unconstitutional and illegal. In paragraph 17 the Full Bench held as follows:

"17. No political party or organisation can claim that it is entitled to paralyse the industry and commerce in the entire State or Nation and is entitled to prevent the citizens not in sympathy with its view point from exercising their fundamental rights or from performing their duties for their can 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 following reliefs were granted in paragraph 18:

"………As we find that organised bodies or Associations of registered political parties, by their act of calling and holding bundhs, trample upon the rights of the citizens of the country protected by the Constitution, we are of the view that this court has sufficient jurisdiction to declare that the calling of a 'hundh' and the holding of it, is unconstitutional especially since, it is undoubted, that the holding of 'bandhs' are not in the interests of the Nation, but tend to retard the progress of the Nation by leading to national loss of production. We cannot also ignore the destruction of public and private property when a bundh is enforced by the political parties or other organisations. We are inclined to the view that the political parties and the organisations which call for such bandhs and enforce them are really liable to compensate the Government the public and the private citizen for the loss suffered by them for such destruction. The State cannot shirk its responsibility of taking steps to recoup and of recouping the loss from the sponsors and organisers of such bandhs. We think that these aspects justify our intervention under Art.226 of the Constitution. In view of our discussion above, we allow these original petitions to the extent of declaring that the calling for a bundh by any association, organisation or political party and the enforcing of that call by it is illegal and unconstitutional. We direct the State and its officials, including the law enforcement agencies to do all that is necessary to give effect to this dec