The Indian Cement Limited Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

THE INDIAN CEMENT LIMITED, (A SUBSIDIARY OF ULTRTECH CEMENTS LIMITED) HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT DHUN ,827, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI AND ITS WORKS AT CHILLAMAKURU, YERAGUNTIA MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. REP BY ITS PLANT HEAD PANDI SUBRAMANYAM S/O RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. PIN 522237.

¶13

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ANDHRA PRADESH, DGP OFFICE, MANGALAGIRI, AMARAVATI. PIN 522503.

¶14

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, OFFICE AT KADAPA, ANDHRA PRADESH. PIN 516001.

¶15

DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, , JAMMALAMADUGU DIVISION, JAMMALAMADUGU, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. PIN 516434.

¶16

CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, YERRAGUNTIA POLICE STATION, YERRAGUNTIA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. PIN 516309.

¶17

2

¶18

Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.10181 of 2026 Dated 04.05.2026

¶19

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶21

S DUSHYANTH REDDY

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶23

GP FOR HOME

¶24

The Court made the following:

¶25

ORDER :

¶26

The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶27

of India seeking the following relief:-

¶28

“…to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction directing the 3rd Respondent to provide immediate adequate and effective police protection to the Petitioners factory by name M/s India cements Ltd located at Chillamakuru Yerraguntia Mandal YSR Kadapa District Andhra Pradesh to run the factory smoothly without any obstruction The Petitioner further prays that the 3rd respondent be directed to take all necessary and effective preventive measures to maintain law and order in and around the factory premises and pass….”

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant

¶30

Government Pleader.

¶31

Sri S. Dushyanth Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that respondent No.3 is not providing adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner’s factory for conducting its affairs smoothly without any obstruction.

¶32

Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that several preventive measures have been taken with

¶33

3

¶34

Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.10181 of 2026 Dated 04.05.2026

¶35

respect to the law and order situation at the petitioner’s factory. Bandobast was also arranged by deploying police personnel.

¶36

The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits as under:

¶37

On 14.04.2026 and 15.04.2026, bandobust was arranged by deploying the Circle Inspector, SubInspectors, Armed Reserve personnel, and local police staff.

¶38

On 15.04.2026 at about 07:30 AM, when certain persons attempted to trespass through the eastern side compound wall, the police immediately intervened and brought the situation under control.

¶39

The allegations made by the petitioner company are false. baseless, and contrary to the actual facts.

¶40

Upon receipt of information regarding a possible breach of law and order at India Cements Limited, Chilamakuru, the police immediately initiated necessary action without delay.

¶41

Adequate police bandobust was arranged at the factory main gate, mines area, eastern compound wall side, and labour colony.

¶42

Continuous patrolling, picketing, and surveillance were carried out in Chilamakuru village and surrounding areas.

¶43

The situation was continuously monitored through field officers and intelligence inputs.

¶44

The police acted lawfully, Impartially, and without bias; the allegation of acting under political influence is strongly denied.

¶45

4

¶46

Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.10181 of 2026 Dated 04.05.2026

¶47

No incident involving violence, injuries, or damage to property occurred due to effective police intervention, which establishes that proper bandobust was maintained.

¶48

The allegation that the police failed to act, as stated by the petitioner, is wholly incorrect; every information received was promptly acted upon.

¶49

11 The police response was proportionate to the prevailing situation.

¶50

12 The duty of the police is confined to maintaining law and order. regulation of industrial operations does not fall within the domain of the police

¶51

13 The petitioner has suppressed the true facts and has exaggerated the situation in the present writ petition.

¶52

14 The situation is presently under control and adequate police bandobust is being continued.

¶53

The police will continue to take necessary steps to maintain law and order in future as well.

¶54

Till as on today respondent 5 along with 2 Sis and staff continuously monitoring the police bundobusth at the above said factory by serving 2 Police Pickets with sufficient staff.

¶55

The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that, as of

¶56

now, there is no major law and order problem or any other issue at the premises of the petitioner’s factory.

¶57

The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.14515 of 2025, dated 19.06.2025, wherein, by placing reliance on the judgments of the High Courts

¶58

5

¶59

Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.10181 of 2026 Dated 04.05.2026

¶60

of Kerala and Madras, a direction was issued to the respondent police therein to provide necessary police protection to the factory premises of the petitioner.

¶61

Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, and recording the submissions made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶62

a. The respondent Nos.2 to 5 shall provide effective police

¶63

protection to the factory premises of the petitioner company to ensure that there is no hindrance/obstruction for free ingress and egress of the men and materials for restarting its operation.

¶64

b. The respondent No.3 shall ensure that no law and order

¶65

problem is created near the factory premises and normalcy is maintained and shall review the situation periodically until normalcy is restored.

¶66

In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as

¶67

to costs.

¶68

As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶69

_________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J

¶70

Date: 04.05.2026 RSI

¶71

6

¶72

Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.10181 of 2026 Dated 04.05.2026

¶73

230

¶74

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

¶75

WRIT PETITION NO: 10181 of 2026

¶76

Date: 04.05.2026 RSI

The Indian Cement Limited v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Indian Cement Limited v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Velusuri Srinuvasa Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri. Gogireddy Prabhakara Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kasula Chinna Subbaiah Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Hari Venkata Ramana @ Hari Royal Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

S Nannemiyya Jameela Begum Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

G.Narasimhulu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh