IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P NO. 1934 OF 2009
DECIDED ON : 06.02.2009
M/S Ashok Kumar and Co.
...Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
Present : Mr. Dheeraj Bali, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)
Notice of motion.
Mr. G. S. Attariwala, Additional AG, Punjab, accepts
notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2.
Keeping in view the nature of the order which I
propose to pass, there appears to be no necessity to issue any
notice of motion to respondents No.3 and 4 at this stage or to
seek any counter affidavit from t he official respondents.
The petitioner is an authorized contractor of the Food
Corporation of India, who has been given a contract w.e.f
01.01.2009 to 31.12.2011 for transportation of the food grains
from Sahnewal Depot to Rail Head, Sahnewal. He has already
deposited the security amount of Rs.1,71,000/- with the Area
Manager, Food Corporation of India, Ludhiana.
C.W.P NO. 1934 OF 2009 -2-
The petitioner’s allegations are that respondents No.3
and 4, who are Presidents of two different Truck Unions operating
at Sahnewal, in a totally illegal and unlawful manner, compelling
him to hire the Trucks of their Unions and then only they will
permit it to transport the food grains in terms of the contract
awarded in the petitioner’s favour.
The petitioner’s further grievance is that even when he
has already reported the matter to the police authorities,
including the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana and
respondent No.2, no action whatsoever is being taken to protect
the petitioner’s life, liberty or property, may be due to the alleged
connivance with the Truck Unions.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some
length, I am of the considered view that if there is a grain of
truth in these allegations, in that event, it is imperative upon the
police authorities to take immediate remedial measures to ensure
that the petitioner’s right to carry on its business and trade in a
lawful manner, as guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) of the
Constitution, is not violated at the hands of anyone including
respondents NO.3 and 4.
In some what similar circumstances, a Division Bench
of this Court vide judgment dated 04.10.2008 passed in C.W.P
No.18143 of 2006 (Manjinder Singh vs. State of Punjab
and others) held as follows :
C.W.P NO. 1934 OF 2009 -3-
“In our considered view, respondent No.3 as well as
the subordinate police officials of the ‘area concerned’
ought to have been remindful of the fact that the
petitioner enjoys a constitutional right to carry on his
business and trade in a lawful manner, as guaranteed
under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India.
Equally important is the protection of his life and
liberty as also those of his employees, the drivers of
the trucks hired by him or the labour engaged to work.
The police authorities could not have neglected their
duty to protect the constitutional or legal rights of the
petitioner or of his employees of the drivers engaged
by him to carry on his/their day-to-day business
activities”.
For the reasons afore-stated, however, without
expressing any views on the merits of the petitioner’s allegations
at this stage, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to
the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana and Station House
Officer, Sahnewal, District Ludhiana, to take immediate and
prompt action in terms of the directions issued by this Court vide
judgment dated 04.10.2008 in Manjinder Singh’s case
(supra), a copy of which shall also be supplied to the petitioner
along with certified copy of this order.
C.W.P NO. 1934 OF 2009 -4-
Copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual
charges.
FEBRUARY 06, 2009 (SURYA KANT) shalini JUDGE