3 W? 1 1082/ 2008
INTHEHKBiCOURTOFKAWWHWKAATBNWMKDRE
DATED THIS THE 07!" DAY OF OCTOBER 2009
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE AJIT J GUN.5§Ai§ 'Lu F.
WRIT PETITION NO.11082;2Q0_8.{GM¥RE§S3 . 4
BETWEEN 1 W O' 'V
M/S JINDAL ALUMINIUM LIMITED:
JINDAL NAOAR, TOMKUR ROAD E
BANGALORE--560()73 ' _
REP. BY ITS OFFICER ON SPECIAL LDU_T[_ "
SR1. G.P. ANAND S/O SHRL' PAPANNA _O A
AGED 52 YEARS , ._ --. v ,,;FE'1mONER
{By Sri A V AMARNATHAN. ,AEv..3}
1 GOVERN1vIEm¥.;OF
VII")HAi\i29x..SOUD§{A._
BA,NGALORE'--jE.60001' '
(REE BY 11$ cH'1'EFO»sEcRF;rARY
2 THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE
C.OVI3RN1\/IEZ\§'I' OF KARNATAKA
.. «ROLIOCE HEADQUARTERS
-_ - .,NRU'I?A'i'*UNGA ROAD '
' n , 13ANOALORE--560001
'ca "
.._C.OMMlSSI.ONER OF LABOUR
. GOVERNj_MF3N'E' OF KARNATAKA
BHAVANA. BANNERUGHATTA ROAD
BANGALORE-560029
:'2;.. O THE---INSPECTOR OF POLICE
' O"N'ELAMANGALA POLICE S'I'A'fi"ION
* NELAMANOALA, BANGALORE RURAL
BANGALORE:
Q " SR1 K R KUMAR
3 VVP I 1082/2008
MAJOR, STATE PRESIDENT
KANNADA SENE, KARNATAKA
BEHIND RMC YARD POLICE STATION
YESHWANTAPURA, TUMKUR ROAD
BANGALORE--560022
SR1 SINGAPURA VENKATESH
MAJOR, DISTRICT PRESIDENT
KANNADA SENE, KARNATAKA
BEHIND RMC YARD POLICE STATION
YESHWANTAPURA, TUMKUR ROAD
BANGALORE~560022 I
(By Sri N.B.VISWANATH, AGA EORVR
KUMAR, ADV. FOR R--5&6} ' g ' g g _
THIS WRIT RET1'1'1ON Is FILEn._'UNDER"ARTI{fLEs§ 225 AND
227 OF THE cONs'nTUT1ON.. OF INEIA;'pRAy1No'TO-DIRECT THE
R2 AND THE R4 TO INi'1'I:ATE'--.pII\I1I\;IEfDIg5i'[§F;I ._ACTION ON THE
REPRESENTATION AT ANNEXUR .§§IND~..vD--I.fFfESPECTIVELY DT.
21.6.2008 AND 1?.-3I.2_OO8§:'ARESIji;I'1NG'_--IN 'I>ROI>ER PROTECTION
FOR RUNNING _IND__UsTRY ETO,
THIS _u.IRITv."_RE'1*ITION"-...cO1v:INo ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING VIN «B oROI'IjR,_"TH__"1s4..DAY THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING; _gi . ..
" " ORDER
I_:VI'The'I'I:'gpetitiOner is a company registered under the
The said company is established in the
year' company is engaged in manufacturing
extruded profiies in India. According to the
they are the only Aluminium manufacturer in India
.C:.IIf1ay51'ng six Aluminium extrusion presses under One roof and
Eachieving the highest production in the country. It appears
1'.-Rzi,
M'
3 W? 11082/2008
that Respondents 5 and 6 who claim to be the State President
and the District President of the Kannada Sene camedtop the
premises of the petitioner and created trouble
unwarranted scenes in as much as the petitionerhas employed V’
only about 40 to 50% of the locals
people and the strength of the company i:é2._lfdO()l.”l’:{Aa’\’i.ng
to the situation. the petitioner l3._a§.._\lodged._ twgp Add
copy of which is producedpzat Thetsaid.-eomplaint
is lodged with the Nelamangaia’* The complaint
discloses that the:V’respondents 13 creating lot of
problems on no without any fault
on the _ the petitioner. They
have alsoVV_pjurisvdicti-onal Police to give necessary
protection. -grievancpe petitioner is not withstanding
the complaint. rioproteclrtion was given. Hence, the present
petition seeking a writ of mandamus to Respondents
immediate action on respondents 5 and 6
and i’urther’toA.:giVe protection to the petitioner’s factory as well
i’ ” * 1 é ” — as its employees.
Mr.Amarnathan, learned counsel appearing for the
“petitioner submits that out of the total l5OO employees. 1200
/
4 WP 1 1082/2008
are kannada speaking and are locals. Hence, the grievance of
the respondents 5 and 6 that the kannada speaking people are
not employed is incorrect. He further submits thatV.ptl_ielStlat.e”is
not providing any security to the petitioner Con’e.pa1’1y,:asland
when the anti sociai group wouid conie’–and’.4create~ t_roubl.e in
front of the factory.
3. On notice, the State hasrentered eaplpeaif.aneel”anld hast
filed statement of objections. Inpthe ~sltate’1″r1ent ‘obje”ctions, the
State would clearly indicate.’ the situation
arises, they woulriiplgive pr:-tec’tit;rl’V to the employees
and the petitf-ionTe.rV itheaffidavit is also filed to
that “It.i9vf,ips eiitract the affidavit of one
Mr.Yatl1ire§,l who Circle inspector of Police at
Nelamanga.la.’~ ”
Eb Illlfurther submit that as and when
» uiriformation regarding any incident as narrated in
petition is received by our police station
action required was taken and the
‘police officials were deputed to control the
i ” r flsituation and to prevent any untoward incident.
5. I further humbly submit that in the
event of any complaint received from the
Detitioner, suitable action would be done as the fl’
5 WP 11082/2008
situation demands and as such, I state that as an
authority being the custodian of law, every action
requires to be taken wouid be met and situation;
would be put under control by taking necegssaafy.
action as required. Hence, I am filing this a’t:T_1:daxjgritv§t’ ‘
in compliance of the order
by1lusPhnfbk:Court” : t’ ” ” “‘d”
4. Having regard to the”ta’ct_that’the anxd
aflidavit through the Circle Inspector:_of._p1?o1ice they would
provide necessary protection to am of the View
that the question of heepingthis pending is wholly
unnecessary. stands disposed
of and the that law and order is
maintained it t_lr1_eWi/icinity of the petitioner
Company; ” 4′
Mr.N’.B–.vViswanath, learned AGA appearing for
dK_respongde.nt«.into’4 is permitted to file memo of appearance
/….
JUDGE