Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

Chennai Yetrumathi Valaga vs 3 Assistant Commissioner Of ...

Madras High Court|19 January, 2017

JUDGMENT / ORDER

4 Venture Lighting India Limited Rep by its Managing Director Plot No. A30 ,D5 Phase II Zone B Madras Export Processing Zone Tambaram Chennai - 600 045 ... 4th Respondent in WP.No.44775/2016 4 PMI Engineering Exports Pvd. Ltd., Rep by its Managing Director B-29, Phase II Madras Export Processing Zone Tambaram Chennai - 600 045 ... 4th Respondent in WP.No.44776/2016 Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing the 2nd and 3rd respondents or any person from any way interfering with the petitioner's peaceful demonstration inside 2nd respondent MEPZ premises and outside the factory of 4th respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Stalin For Respondents : Mr.S.Rajeswaran, S.G.P. - for R1 & R3 (in both the WPs) Mr.G.Shanthi Meenakshi - for R2 (in both the WPs) Mr.A.L.Somayaji, Sr. Counsel for Mr.K.V.Shanmuganathan - for R4 in W.P.No.44776/2016 Mr.S.V.Jayaraman, Sr. Cousnel for Mr.K.V.Shanmuganathan - for R4 in W.P.No.44775/2016 COMMON ORDER These writ petitions have been filed seeking Writs of mandamus forbearing the 2nd and 3rd respondents from any way interfering with the petitioner's peaceful demonstration inside 2nd respondent MEPZ premises and outside the factory of 4th respondent.
2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Special Government Pleader has brought to the notice of the court the counter filed by the second respondent. A reading of the counter affidavit particularly, paragraph 16 of the same would make it clear that the demonstration carried on by the petitioner's men are obstructing the pathway and quite close to many other units in the zone.
3. In view of the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, as the petitioner is working inside the MEPZ Zone, if they wanted to agitate their grievance or to carry on any strike, they can do so, only after obtaining necessary permission or sanction from the necessary authorities concerned. It is also made clear that the same can be carried on only outside the MEPZ Zone without doing any hindrance to other units inside the said zone. It is further made clear that the authorities are at liberty to take any action against the protesters in accordance with law, if they violate any condition stipulated by the authorities concerned or indulge in any illegal act.
B.RAJENDRAN, J.
smi
4.These writ petitions are disposed with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Chennai Yetrumathi Valaga vs 3 Assistant Commissioner Of ...

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
19 January, 2017