P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.

After this Court declared in Bharat Kumar v. State of Kerala (1997 (2) KLT 287 = AIR 1997 Ker. 291) that the calling of a bundh and the enforcement of that call is illegal and unconstitutional and that decision of this Court was confirmed in appeal by the Supreme Court, in Communist Party of India (Marxist) v. Bharat Kumar (1997(2) KLT 1007 = AIR 1998 SC 184), Political Parties including the appellant before the Supreme Court started calling for Hartals. In Bharat Kumar's case this Court had made a distinction between a 'bundh' and a 'hartal' and had pointed out that a 'bundh' involved coercion of others into toeing the line of those who called for the bundh and that act was unconstitutional since it violated the rights of others. This Court proceeded on the basis that a hartal was a peaceful act of non-co-operation or was a passive resistance movement and a call for it did not involve coercion of a person who did not want to join the hartal into compulsorily participating in the hartal. The Supreme Court in Communist Party of India (Marxist) v. Bharat Kumar while affirming the decision of this Court approved the distinction so made by this Court. Presumably in the context of this, political parties and mnshroom organisations in this State started calling for hartals. These Original Petitions are filed complaining that coercion is used accompanying the calls for hartals and what are now held are not hartals as understood or as recognized by this Court and approved by the Supreme Court and that even if the call is for a hartal if the call is enforced by violence, threat, physical or mental, actual or perceived, holding of a hartal would become unconstitutional especially in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Communist Party of India (Marxist) v. Bharat Kumar and it is therefore necessary for this Court to declare that the calling of hartal in the manner in which it is now done is also unconstitutional. In fact it is contended that the hartal as it is now observed or compelled to be observed, is lion in a sheep's clothing. In O.P. 17833 of 1998 filed on 15.9.1998, the prayer is for a declaration that the calling for a hartal and the holding of it constitute infringement of the fundamental rights of the petitioners therein under Arts.19 and 21 of the Constitution and the Directive Principles of State Policy and the Constitutional duties contained in Art.51A of the Constitution of India and for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the State of Kerala and the Director General of Police to take appropriate measures necessary to give effect to the declaration. The petitioners are the Kerala Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samithy, Ottapalam unit and the Citizen's Forum, Ottapalam unit. O.P. 20641 of 1998 filed on 24.10.1998, is by the Institute of Social Welfare, a Society registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Act, 1955 to promote social welfare activities in the State. The prayer in that petition is for a declaration that the hartal and the calling for the closure of shops and other establishments and the stoppage of plying of transport vehicles by any individual or organisation or other group of people is bundh as defined in the judgment of this Court in Bharat Kumar v. State of Kerala (1997(2) KLT 287) affirmed by the Supreme Court, in Communist Party of India (Marxist) v. Bharat Kumar (1997(2) KLT 1007 = AIR 1998 SC 184) and to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the Chief Election Commissioner to take action against respondent No. 3, Communist Party of India (Marxist), the appellant before the Supreme Court in the Bundh case, for cancellation of the registration granted to that political party under the Representation of People Act. There is a prayer for the issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the Director General of Police to issue appropriate directions to all police personnel to take immediate and appropriate action under law a