Ashok Bhushan, Ag.C.J. Both the writ petitions have been filed praying for same relief, i.e., a direction to the first respondent to render adequate and effective police protection to the petitioners' vehicles bearing registration Nos. KL-10/Q- 8600, KL-10/Q-2005 and KL-11/R-5851 and also to the crews of the above vehicles to ply the vehicles in the respective routes covered under Exhibits P1 to P3 permits without being interfered or obstructed by the respondents 3 to 7.
2. The first writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is the owner of the vehicles. Notices were issued by this Court by order dated 27.11.2014. Notices have been served, but no one has put in appearance on -:2:-
W.P.(C). Nos. 31790 & 31914 of 2014 behalf of the private respondents. Petitioner's case is that the respondents 1 to 7 are ex-employees, whose services had come to an end and demanding certain terminal benefits, they have obstructed the running of the buses, to which they have no jurisdiction.
3. It is further submitted that this Court passed an interim order on 27.11.2014 directing respondents 1 and 2 to ensure that law and order is maintained and adequate and effective protection is granted to the petitioner to operate the vehicles.
4. The second writ petition is filed by the petitioners, who are the employees running the aforesaid vehicles. The very same allegations have been made against respondents 2 to 8, who are the same respondents in the first writ petition.
5. In view of the fact that notices have already been issued in the first writ petition, which have been served, we do not see any necessity to issue notices in the -:3:-
W.P.(C). Nos. 31790 & 31914 of 2014 second writ petition. In the above view of the matter, the learned Government Pleader further submits that, in view of the interim order adequate protection has been provided and the vehicles are running smoothly.
Hence, both the writ petitions are closed with direction to respondents 1 and 2 to ensure that no obstruction is caused by private respondents in running the vehicles of the petitioner. It is made clear that, this shall be without prejudice to right of the private respondents to raise labour dispute or make any claim in accordance with law.
Sd/-
ASHOK BHUSHAN, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
A.M. SHAFFIQUE JUDGE das