IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.11.2009
CORAM:
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRU
W.P.No.22929 of 2009
&
M.P.No.1 of 2009
KALEESWARI REFINERY PVT. LTD.
REP.BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER H.R.MR.K.P. PRADEEP
OFFICE AT: NO.53 RAJASEKARAN STREET
MYLAPORE CHENNAI-4
and Factory Office at
No5, Mambakkam Road
Vengaivasal, Chennai 600 073
[ PETITIONER ]
Vs
1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
SELAYUR, KANCHEEPURAM DIST.
2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
ST. THOMAS MOUNT
3 THE GENERAL SECRETARY
CHENNAI EXPORT PROCESSING ZONE (MEPZ) &
GENERAL WORKERS UNION
NO.11 KANNAN STREET
KADAPERI CHENNAI-45 [ RESPONDENTS ]
Prayer : Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to offer police protection to the petitioner's factory situate at No.5 Mambakkam Road, Vengaivasal, Chennai-73.
For Petitioner :: Mr.V.Ragahvachari
For Respondents :: Mr.Sivashanmugam, G.A.
O R D E R
The petitioner is a Private Limited Company having its factory at Mambakkam Road, Vengaivasal, Chennai. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking for direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to offer police protection to the petitioner’s factory situate at No.5 Mambakkam Road, Vengaivasal, Chennai-73.
2. The petitioner had stated that the 3rd respondent, which is a Trade Union had raised a dispute by issuing a strike notice dated 29.10.2009. According to the petitioner, it is an unrecognised Union. However, talks were held before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour-I (Conciliation), Chennai. Even while the talks were going on, the petitioner Company had received a caveat lodged by the 3rd respondent before the Civil Courts in Tambaram and Chengelpattu. It is stated that the strike notice is a blackmail that issued by the 3rd respondent. If it is allowed to go ahead with the strike notice, the petitioner Company will not be able to run its business. It is also stated that the 3rd respondent is engaging rowdy elements and due to them, serious damage will be caused to the reputation of the petitioner.
3. The petitioner also referred to a judgment of this Court in A.S.V.Varadhachariyar vs. the Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Madras and another reported in 1969 (II) MLJ 1.
4. Notice was ordered to the respondents. The learned Government Advocate, on instructions from the 1st respondent, the Inspector of Police, Selaiyur, Kancheepuram District submitted that there is no law and order problem in and around the area of the petitioner’s factory.
5. Even a perusal of the so-called complaint given by the petitioner dated 5.11.2009 (found in page 9 of the typed set of papers) would show that it did not disclose any cognizable offences committed by the 3rd respondent Union. Thought it was stated that the 3rd respondent is not a recognised Union under the Industrial Disputes Act, there is no provision for the grant of recognition to any Union. It is solely left to the management’s discretion. In the present case, as disclosed in the affidavit, the conciliation talks are pending before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour-I (Conciliation), Chennai. At this stage if any direction is given, it will only create problem for both the parties in solving their dispute amicably.
6. The judgment cited by the petitioner, namely 1969 (II) MLJ 1 related to a case where the nearby slum dwellers occupied the petitioner’s property without permission and it was held to be a criminal trespass. Only when the Police Commissioner did not act, a direction to the Commissioner of Police for taking appropriate action on the cognizable offence was issued. The reliance placed upon the said judgment is completely misplaced. The petitioner as a matter of right cannot claim any police protection unless the law permits.
7. The Supreme Court vide judgment in P.R.Muralidharan & others vs. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 501 has held that the High Court cannot as a matter of right give police protection on the mere asking for it.
8. The following passage found in para 12 of the judgment in Moran M.Baselios Marthoma Mathews II and others vs. State of Kerala and others reported in (2007) 6 SCC 517 (by S.B.Sinha J) may be usefully extracted below:-
“Such might have been the contentions of the appellants before the High Court or before us in the special leave petitions, but we have no doubt in our mind that such disputed questions in regard to title of the properties or the right of one group against the other in respect of the management of such a large number of Churches could not have been the subject-matter for determination by a writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the garb of grant of police protection to one or the other appellants.”
9. In the light of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed.
ajr
To
1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
SELAYUR, KANCHEEPURAM DIST.
2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
ST. THOMAS MOUNT