Uttarakhand High Court
WPCRL/736/2022 on 9 June, 2023
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPCRL No.736 of 2022
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the
petitioner.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Joshi, Brief Holder for
the State.
None appears for respondent no.7.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. This writ petition is filed by SIDCUL
Entrepreneur Welfare Society, which is an
association of Entrepreneurs, who have
established manufacturing units in the
Industrial Estate created by SIDCUL at
Pantnagar, District Udham Singh Nagar.
4. By means of this writ petition petitioner
has sought following reliefs:-
(i) Issue a writ in the nature of
mandamus commanding respondent
nos.4,5, 6 to provide adequate Police
Protection in the premises of Integrated
Industrial Estate Pantnagar, District
Udham Singh Nagar so that industrial
production is not disrupted on
26.04.2022 by the protest/dharna of
respondent no.7.
(ii) Issue writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus commanding the
respondent to forthwith take appropriate
steps to prohibit the proposed Kishan
Maha Panchayat which is scheduled on
26 April, 2022 at Parley-G Chowk
Integrted Industrial Estate Pantnagar,
Udham Singh Nagar.
(iii) Issue a writ in the nature of
mandamus commanding respondent
no.1-6 to take appropriate steps not to
permit any dharna or protest within the
Integrated Industrial Estate Pantnagar,
District Udham Singh Nagar which is a
public path, road and utility in future in
terms of the dictum laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment of
Amit Shahni (Shahin Bagh, Inre) vs.
Commissioner of Police and ors. reported
in 2020 Volume 10 SCC page 439.
(iv) Issue any other suitable writ, order
or direction in favour of petitioner, which
this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the present circumstances of
the case.
(v) Award cost of writ petition in favour
of petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits prayer nos.1 & 2 have become
infructuous, inasmuch as the demonstration
held by respondent no.7 has now come to an
end. He only presses the prayer as made in
relief clause no.3 alone.
6. To assemble peaceably and without arms
is a constitutionally guaranteed right and right
to hold a peaceful protest is a concomitant of
said right and also the right to freedom of
speech and expression. However, this is
subject to reasonable restrictions and it has to
be balanced with the right of the public.
7. Petitioner in affect prays for a restraint
order against Resp. No. 7, which we are not
inclined to grant under Article 226 of the
Constitution and petitioner may approach a
civil court for such relief.
8. Learned counsel for petitioner points out
that a place has been earmarked for holding
demonstration etc. within industrial township.
9. In such view of the matter, we dispose of
the writ petition with liberty to petitioner to
approach the District Magistrate by making a
representation. If such representation is made
within four weeks from today, District
Magistrate shall invite objections from all
stakeholders including office bearers of all the
trade unions, who are operating in the area
and shall take a decision, as per law, within a
period of four months.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
09.06.2023
Arti
