Disposed

R.S.Foods v. State of Punjab etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Apr 2009CWP/5239/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner threatened by unauthorized truck union for hiring trucks outside union. Court directed police authorities to take cognizance of complaint, ensure no obstruction in business, and provide security. Stern action directed against union members causing unlawful interference.

What did the court decide?

Direction to authorities to take cognizance, ensure no obstruction, provide security, and take stern action against union members causing unlawful interference.

R.S.Foods Vs State of Punjab etc. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP No.5239 of 2009 Date of decision: April 01, 2009.

¶3

R.S. Sood

¶4

... Petitioner(s)

¶5

¶6

State of Punjab & Ors.

¶7

... Respondent(s)

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT

¶9

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶10

Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ?

¶11

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶12

Present: Shri Suresh Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Surya Kant, J.

¶15

Notice of motion to respondents No.1 to 4 at this stage.

¶16

Shri G.S. Attariwala, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice.

¶17

The petitioner seeks a direction for the protection of his life and property which is alleged to have been threatened at the hands of respondent No.5 – Truck Operator Union, Dhuri.

¶18

The petitioner is running a rice mill at Killa Hakima, Dhuri, district Sangrur. The petitioner keeps on transporting paddy and after dehusking the same, delivers the rice to govt. agencies and for that purpose, hires the trucks from various transport companies. Respondent No.5 – Truck Union, which is an unauthorized organization, however, is

¶19

threatening the petitioner to hire only the trucks which are registered with the said Union and to pay exorbitant freight. The proprietor and employees/ workers of the petitioner have been threatened with dire consequence in case the trucks from respondent No.5 – Union are not hired.

¶20

Having heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner at some length and keeping in view the constitutional protection to which the petitioner, if the allegations are true, is entitled to, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to:- (i) the Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur; (ii) the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur; (iii) the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dhuri; and (iv) the SHO, Police Station Dhuri, to take cognizance of the petitioner's complaint and if so required, ensure that no obstruction, whatsoever, shall be allowed to be caused to the petitioner in its legitimate business activities by the Truck Union, Dhuri, it’s office-bearers or members, etc. If so considered necessary, the aforementioned authorities shall provide adequate security to the trucks/other transport vehicles of the petitioner and in the event of any unlawful obstruction or interference caused by the office-bearers/members of the Truck Union, Dhuri, stern action, in accordance with law, shall be taken against them.

¶21

Dasti.

¶22

April 01, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge

R.S.Foods v. State of Punjab etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.S.Foods v. State of Punjab etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurminder Kaur Vs Rajinder Kaur

Air Marshal Loreto P Pereira Vs H U D a and Ors.

Kewal Krishan Lal and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Gurudatt Gupta Vs Rameshwar Dass Gupta

M/S Bharti Realty Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Punjab Urban Planning & Dev. Authority & Ors.

Sita Ram Vs State of Punjab & Ors.