Disposed

M/s.Kaleeswari v. The State rep.by Deputy

Madras HC21 Sept 2017WP/25321/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order concerns a writ petition under Article 226 seeking police protection for a refinery against trade union interference. The court directed the Chennai Police Administration to consider the petitioner's representation promptly after giving due opportunity to the trade union.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Second Respondent to consider the petitioner's representation on police protection after giving the Fourth Respondent due opportunity, to be completed by 24.09.2017.

M/s.Kaleeswari Vs The State rep.by Deputy — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 21.09.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶2

W.P.No.25321 of 2017 & WMP.No.26778 of 2017

¶3

M/s. Kaleeswari Refinery Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director G.Karunaianandam

¶4

.. Petitioner
Vs
1.The State rep. by
Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Chennai 600 009.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Selaiyur Police Station,
Selaiyur,
Chennai 600 073.
Kancheepuram District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Pallikaranai Police Station,
Pallikaranai,
Chennai 600 100.
4.Chennai Yettrumathi Yalaga Uzhiyargal
Mattrum Podhu Thozillargal Sangam,
rep. by its General Secretary
.. Respondents

¶5

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner company M/s. Kaleeswari Refinery Pvt. Ltd. having factory at No.5, Mambakkam Road, Vengaivasal, Chennai 600 126, so as to enable the petitioner company to carry out its business activities without any disturbances from the members of the 4th respondent and to have free ingress and egress by the employees of the petitioner company and to transport the raw materials and finished products from the premises of the petitioner company.

¶6

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

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.Sankar Ramasamy

¶8

For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.D.Vairamoorthy, Special Government Pleader

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

Petitioner has filed the present writ of mandamus seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to provide adequate police protection to his company for the purpose of carrying out its business activities without any disturbances from the members of the 4th respondent.

¶11

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.

¶12

The apprehension of the petitioner is that the members of the fourth respondent trade union are attempting to stop the other lawful workmen during the strike period announced by the fourth respondent. In this regard, the petitioner has given a representation to the second respondent on 18.09.2017 seeking for police protection. Since the same has not been considered till date, the present petition has been filed.

¶13

It is needless to point out whenever a representation is made, the respondents are bound to consider it one way or the other instead of keeping it pending. In this background, the second respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation after giving due opportunity to the fourth respondent also.

¶14

Such an exercise shall be completed on or before 24.09.2017. With the above observation, this Writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶15

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS II)

¶16

//True Copy//

¶17

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶18

smi

¶19

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

¶20

To,

¶21

1.The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Chennai 600 009.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Selaiyur Police Station,
Selaiyur,
Chennai 600 073.
Kancheepuram District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Pallikaranai Police Station,
Pallikaranai,
Chennai 600 100.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1 cc to Mr.R.Sankar Ramasamy Advocate sr 69221
W.P.No.25321 of 2017
svi(co)
aa22/09/2017

¶22

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

M/s.Kaleeswari v. The State rep.by Deputy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Kaleeswari v. The State rep.by Deputy

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

D.Thirunavukkarasu, Vs the Inspector of Police

R.Senthamilan, Aged 25 Years, Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Ark.Shanmugam Vs the Commissioner of Police

Roshan Kuruvilla Thomas Vs Arihant Invesments by

N. Sivanesan, Vs the State Rep. by Inspector

Raman, S/o.Sarangan Vs The Principal Secretary