Disposed

Devi Corporation,a Partnership v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC16 Apr 2013WP(MD)/2221/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ protection against alleged interference by a trade union loading/unloading goods. Found union counsel stated no intention to obstruct, finding apprehension baseless and disposing petition without factual adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of by recording that apprehension is baseless and no need for factual adjudication.

Devi Corporation,a Partnership Vs the Superintendent… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 16.04.2013

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.2221 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶7

Devi Corporation, A Partnership Firm, Rep by its Partner K.Kumar, S/o.S.Kanagavel, Plot No.2098, First Avenue Road, West Annuppanadi, Madurai 625 009. : Petitioner Vs.

¶8

1.The Superintendent of Police,

¶9

Madurai District, Surveyor Colony, Madurai 625 007.

¶10

2.The Inspector of Police, Perungudi Police Station, Avaniapuram, Madurai 625 012.

¶11

3.The President,

¶12

Madurai Puranagar Sumai Pani Thozhilalargal Sangam, CITU Union, Solankurini,

¶13

Avaniapuram, Madurai 625 012.

¶14

: Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to grant the petitioner sufficient protection to carry on their business Devi Corporation, at Plot No.2098, First Avenue Road, West Annuppanadi, Madurai 625 009, on the representation dated 09.01.2013 made to respondents 1 and 2 from the interference of the third respondent Trade Union or its officers or members to the loading and unloading of the materials and goods of the petitioner's at their place.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Subbiah

¶17

For Respondents 1&2 : Mr.A.Muthukaruppan Additional Government Pleader

¶18

For Respondent 3 : Mr.S.M.Mohan Gandhi

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1 and 2 to grant them protection for the purpose of doing business at Plot No.2098, First Avenue Road, West Annuppanadi, Madurai.

¶21

¶22

The petitioner is stated to be a dealer of rice bran. The petitioner has got a godown at Survey Nos.12/8 and 12/4-B3 at Nalloor Vilakku, Solankurini, Nedunkulam Village. The petitioner purchased materials for the purpose of construction. However, the petitioner was not permitted by the third respondent and the members of the union to load and unload materials under the pretext that they should engage only the members nominated by the union. This made the petitioner to submit a representation before the Superintendent of Police, Madurai District and the Inspector of Police, Perungudi Police Station, Avaniapuram, Madurai. The petitioner now wanted the police to give protection for the purpose of loading and unloading.

¶23

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent, on instructions, submitted that the third respondent never interfered in the lawful conduct of business by the petitioner. The third respondent wanted the local people to be employed and the members of the third respondent union have no intention to restrain the petitioner from loading and unloading.

¶24

The statement made by the learned counsel for the third respondent is recorded.

¶25

The apprehension of the petitioner is baseless, in view of the stand taken by the third respondent that the members of the third respondent union have no intention to obstruct the petitioner from loading and unloading the articles at their godown.

¶26

In view of the same, there is no need for factual adjudication in this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observation. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Sd/-

Deputy Registrar(LA)

/True Copy/

Assistant Registrar

1.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Surveyor Colony, Madurai 625 007.

¶33

2.The Inspector of Police, Perungudi Police Station, Avaniapuram, Madurai 625 012.

¶34

+1 CC to Mr.S.SUbbiah, Advocate (SR.NO.21199)

¶35

+1 CC to Mr.S.M.Mohan Gandhi, Advocate (SR.NO.21570)

¶36

ORDER MADE IN W.P.(MD)No.2221 of 2013 16.04.2013

¶37

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶38

NB NSV/3.5.13/2P/5C

Devi Corporation,a Partnership v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devi Corporation,a Partnership v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Chellaswamy, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

J.G. Narmatha, Vs the District Collector

S. Arunachalam, S/O.Samy Nadar Vs the District Collector

S. Ganapathy, Vs the Superintendent of Police

V. Ponnazhagu, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

C.Ravichandran, Vs the Deputy General Manager &