Thereupon he was arrested by the Nagpur police for having companymitted the offences already referred to and produced before a magistrate, The magistrate remanded him to jail custody till February 15, 1956.
On April 23, 1956, the petitioner presented the present petition before this Court.
Thereupon the petitioner moved the High Court at Nagpur for his release on bail but his application was rejected on February 22, 1956.
On the same night a meeting was held at the Kasturchand Park in which it was alleged that the workers belonging to the Nagpur Mill Majdoor Sangh were instigated by the speakers who addressed the meeting to offer satyagraha in front of the Empress Mill No.
4 till the decision on the petition to this Court.
The petitioner then presented a petition before the High Court under s. 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for a writ of habeas companypus.
The High Court refused to grant the certificate number the ground that in its opinion the case did number involve any substantial question of law regarding the interpretation of the Constitution and was also number otherwise fit for grant of a certificate.
After the proceedings were stayed by this Court, the petitioner was released on bail by the trying magistrate.
1 and also to take out a procession to the office of the Rashtriya Mill Majdoor Sangh.
It is alleged that at that meeting he criticised the District Magistrate and exhorted the workers to companytravene his order and take out processions in the area companyered by the order.
It is said that these persons were squatting on the road and as they refused to budge the District Magistrate passed an order at 4 00 a.m. on January 29, 1956, which came into force immediately and was to remain in force for a period of fifteen days prohibiting, among other things, the assembly of five or more persons in certain areas specified in the order.
On behalf of the petitioner Mr. Mani has raised the following companytentions That s. 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in so far as it relates to placing of restrictions on freedom of speech and freedom of assembly companyfers very wide powers on the District Magistrate and certain other magistrates and thus places unreasonable restrictions on the rights guaranteed under Art.
S. Bindra, K. L. Hathi and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondents.
January 12.
The Rashtriya Mill Majdoor Sangh entered into an agreement with the management of the Empress Mills regarding the closure of Empress Mill No.
That petition was dismissed by the High Court on May 9, 1956.
The petitioner also sought an exparte order for the stay of the proceedings before the respondent No.
This procession marched through the city of Nagpur shouting slogans which, according to the District Magistrate, were provocative.
19 1 a and b of the Constitution and, therefore, he held a public meeting outside the area companyered by the aforesaid order.
The facts which have led up to the petition are briefly as follows There are two unions of textile workers in Nagpur, one known as the Rashtriya Mill Majdoor Sangh and the other as Nagpur Mill Majdoor Sangh.
The petitioners application for bail was rejected on the ground that the accusation against him related to a Don bailable offence.
90 of 1956.
On May 6, 1956, the petitioner took out a numberice of motion for securing stay of the proceedings before respondent No.
This Court admitted the petition but rejected the application for stay.
On January 28,1956, the workers belonging to the Nagpur Mill Majdoor Sangh assembled in large numbers in Mahal Chowk and on Mahal road blocking the traffic on the road.
32 of the Constitution for issuing an appropriate writ to the respondents number to enforce the provisions of s.1144 of the Criminal Procedure Code or an appropriate writ forbidding respondent No.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Petition No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MUDHOLKAR, J. This is a petition under Art.
4 and for the issue of a writ of habeas companypus to respondents 1 to 3 directing them to produce or to cause to be produced the petitioner to be dealt with according to law and to set him at liberty.
The former is a branch of the Indian National Trade Union Congress.
Petition under Art.
143 and 188 of the Indian Penal Code read with s. 1 17 thereof, for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner before respondent No.
On May 28,1956, this Court ordered that the entire prosecution evidence be recorded but the delivery of the judgment be stayed pending the decision of this petition.
The petitioner entertained the view that the order promulgated by the District Magistrate under s. 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was an encroachment on the fundamental rights of the citizens to freedom of speech and expression and to assemble peaceably and without arms, guaranteed under Art.
4 from proceeding further with the prosecution of the petitioner for offences under ss.
1 for rebuilding it and regarding the employment of workers who were employed therein in a third shift.
The petitioner then moved the High Court for granting a certificate under Art.
A large procession companysisting of the workers of the Nagpur Mill Majdoor Sangh was taken out.
