Dismissed

Indian Immunologicals Ltd. v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC30 Jul 2018WP/26282/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A High Court Bench dismissed a writ petition challenging the refusal of police and the establishment to permit a trade union to hoist a flag and hold a peaceful meeting at the factory gate, rejecting the claim of fundamental right violation due to location restrictions and lack of employment tie.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed the writ petition seeking a direction to permit flag hoisting and a meeting outside the factory gate.

Indian Immunologicals Ltd. Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶2

W.P.NO.26282 OF 2018

¶3

O R D E R

¶4

This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

¶5

“ To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in not permitting the petitioner – Union for the peaceful meeting for 1 to 1 ½ hours for inauguration and flag hoisting on 16.07.2018 and 20.07.2018, outside the main gate of the 4^th respondent establishment at Gachibowli, Hyderabad, as illegal and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to issue necessary permission for the peaceful inauguration meeting and union flag hoisting on 30.07.2018 or any other working day inside or outside of the main gate of the 4^th respondent establishment, and pass such other orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that forming association is a fundamental right and the contract workers of the Indian Immunological Ltd., formed an association for their welfare and as they intended to hoist the trade union flag and conduct peaceful meeting out side the premises of 4^th respondent, approached the 3^rd respondent – Station House Officer, Gachibowli Police Station, Gachibowli, Hyderabad with a representation, but no permission has been granted and this amounts to violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution.

¶7

Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent submits that petitioner – union is trying to erect a flag pole next to the main gate of the factory, which is opposite to Gachibowli stadium and that as per G.O.Ms.No.18 dated 18.02.2013, any structures on public roads, pavements, sideways and other public utility places are prohibited. The members of the petitioner – union are not the employees of the 4^th respondent and hence they cannot be permitted to erect flag pole and hoist flag, at the factory premises. Learned counsel contended

¶8

that no fundamental rights of the members of the petitioner – union, are violated and hence sought to dismiss the writ petition.

¶9

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home produced written instructions of the 3^rd respondent stating that as the place chosen for flag hoisting is very close to the main road, petitioner was advised to approach the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) Authorities for permission. It is stated that as the place where the flag hoisting was planned, is very close to the old Mumbai Highway, this respondent made formal bandhobust arrangement on 20.07.2018 at Indian Immunology main gate, where number of people gathered, to prevent any untoward incident, but not to prevent the legal rights of the petitioner.

¶10

As per the submission of the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent, petitioners are not the employees of the 4^th respondent. Further, as per the written instructions of the 3^rd respondent, the place, where the petitioner – union sought to erect pole and hoist trade union flag, is very close to the main road. Therefore, erecting flag pole, at this place, may lead to traffic obstruction and the same is prohibited under G.O.Ms.No.18 dated 18.02.2013. In these circumstances, the petitioner has not made out any case for interference of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶11

Interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.

¶12

---------------------------------------- A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J DATE:30—07—2018 avs

Indian Immunologicals Ltd. v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Immunologicals Ltd. v. The State of Telangana

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

Smt. Josephine Vs The State of Telangana

M. Surendor Reddy Vs The Slate of Telangana, Home Department

Dr.N.Tulasi Priya Vs The State of Telangana

Thota Baba VenkataNarasimha Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Dr.K.v.Surya Prakash Rao S/o. K.GOpal Rao Vs The State of Telangana Rep. by its Chief Secretary

Smt. Maria Anthony Vs State of Ts