- (1.) This case is listed peremptorily today and there are two counsels in the matter appearing for petitioners, whose names are shown in the cause list. We are informed that cases of one of the counsel for petitioners, Sri H.S. Jain, are adjourned but adjournment does not apply to the cases which are listed peremptorily. The reason as to why other counsel has not appeared is not communicated to us. Hence we find no reason to adjourn the matter and proceed to decide the matter after perusal of record and hearing Sri M.M. Pandey, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Sri Raj Baksh Singh, Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Q.H. Rizvi, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondents.
(2.) Record shows that petitioner-2 has died and petitioner-1 was dismissed from service, hence an application for impleadment has been filed by one Rajendra Kumar Tripathi, who is not a legal heir of petitioner-2. Writ petition has not been either in representative capacity or as public interest litigation. Applicant seeking impleadment has separate cause of action of his own, therefore, he has no right to be impleaded in place of petitioner-2 (after his death). Impleadment Application is accordingly rejected.
(3.) So far as the writ petition is concerned, petitioners had prayed for a declaration that Police Force (Restriction of Rights) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1966") does not prohibits Members of U.P. Police Force to form a Service Association and such an Association can be formed in view of U.P. (Recognition of Service Associations) Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1979").;