Uttarakhand High Court
Narendra Pokhriyal vs T.H.D.C. And Others on 29 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Second Appeal No.123 of 2023
Narendra Pokhriyal ....Appellant
Versus
T.H.D.C. and Others .... Respondents
Present:
Mr. I.P. Kohli, counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Shobhit Saharia, counsel for respondent no.1/THDC.
Dated: 29.09.2023
Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J. (Oral)
This second appeal has been filed against the
judgment and order dated 03.07.2023 passed by District
Judge, Chamoli in Civil Appeal No.01 of 2019, "T.H.D.C.
India Limited vs. Narendra Pokhriyal and Others",
whereby the appeal filed by the respondent/plaintiff has
been allowed.
2. Counsel for the appellant/defendant no.1
would submit that the present second appeal is against
the non-concurrent finding, i.e to say, the trial court
dismissed the suit of the respondent no.1 /plaintiff
seeking a decree of permanent injunction for restraining
the present appellant/defendant no.1 and other private
respondents from holding dharnas and picketing within
300 meters of the Power Generation Plant of respondent
no.1 /plaintiff and interfering directly or indirectly in the
possession and construction of the Power Project Plant in
the suit property; that, in appeal of respondent
no.1/plaintiff the judgment of the trial court was set
aside and the suit of the respondent no.1/plaintiff was
decreed. Hence, this second appeal.
3. Counsel for the appellant/defendant no.1
would submit that the following substantial questions of
law would arise for consideration in the present appeal:-
"1. Whether the Ld. First Appellate Court erred
in law in overlooking that the suit filed by the
plaintiff/respondent No. 1 is mala fide and the
plaint does not disclose any cause of action in
view of the admitted position regarding
acquisition of land of villagers and non
acquisition of land of appellant?
2. Whether the Ld. First Appellate Court erred in
law in overlooking that the permanent injunction
of such a nature against the appellant would
result in totally taking away the democratic
rights to property as enshrined in the
Constitution of India?
3. Whether Ld. First Appellate Court erred in
law in overlooking that distance of 300 meters
in a hilly village would amount to bringing the
entire activities in the village to a standstill and
if not to a standstill, in the radar of facing
contempt proceedings on every day to day
activity they carry?"
4. Counsel for the appellant/defendant no.1
would further submit that holding dharnas and picketing
is a fundamental right of the appellant/defendant no.1,
and that due to the impugned judgment and decree of
the First Appellate Court he is not able to visit his other
land situated in the vicinity of the Power Project Plant.
However, at Bar he would admit that the land stated in
the plaint and in the impugned judgment and decree
does belong to respondent no.1/plaintiff and he has
nothing to do with this land. He would further submit
that several cases were registered against him under
various sections including Sections 353, 504, 506 of IPC
where he has been acquitted.
5. Per contra, counsel for respondent
no.1/plaintiff would submit that respondent
no.1/plaintiff is constructing the Power Generation Plant
admittedly in his own land and the appellant/defendant
no.1 and other private respondents have been raising
politically motivated ruckus, obstruction, interference in
the construction and working of the Power Project Plant
so as to coerce and blackmail respondent no.1/plaintiff
to succumb to the illegal demands, which are otherwise
not permissible under the law.
He would further submit that there is no
substantial question of law involved as admittedly the
land on which the power project is constructed and is
being run is its own land and the appellant/defendant
no.1 besides other private respondents have merely being
restrained from picketing, holding dharnas etc. within
the distance of 300 meters from the Power Project Plant.
6. It is settled law that if citizens have right to
hold the protest then it is also the right that the projects
manufacturing units etc. work should not be obstructed
illegally. Merely restraining the appellant/defendant no.1
and other private respondents from holding dharnas,
picketing and sloganeering within the 300 meters from
the Power Project Plant does not take away any of the
fundamental right as they are free to do the same beyond
the limit of 300 meters.
7. In considered opinion of this Court, no
substantial question of law arises for consideration in
this Appeal. Present second lacks merit and is the same
is hereby dismissed in limine.
(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.)
29.09.2023
BS
