CWP No.10540 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.10540 of 2010 Date of Decision: 07.12.2010 **** Gurdev Group of Companies . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. KS Sidhu, DAG Punjab Mr. SS Salar, Advocate for respondents No.5 to 7 ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner is a transport Company who plies its own fleet of trucks for transporting the goods. It is alleged that respondent No.5-Truck Union and its office-bearers, namely, respondent NO.6&7 are not permitting the petitioner to ply its trucks and have threatened the drivers and officials of the petitioner-Company with dire consequences. (2). Notwithstanding the simpliciter denial in their reply/affidavit filed by respondents No.5 to 7, this Court cannot overlook the fact that earlier also a CWP No.10540 of 2010.doc - 2 – transporter, namely, Ashok Kumar had approached this Court leveling similar allegations against the private respondents and it was only pursuant to the directions issued by this Court vide order dated February 6, 2009 that the said writ-petitioner was allowed to operate his vehicles without any obstruction. (3). In the present writ petition also vide order dated 02.07.2010, the following directions were issued: - “Meanwhile, the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana is directed to ensure that no obstruction is caused to the petitioner-Company, its employees, drivers and/or vehicles in the matter of transportation of goods, in accordance with law. It is made clear that if respondents No.6 & 7 or any other member(s) of the Truck Union causes or abets others to cause obstruction and/or commit any other cognizable offence in relation to the plying of trucks by the petitioner- Company for transportation of its goods, the police authorities shall act immediately and register the case under the appropriate provisions of the IPC/other laws. A compliance report shall be filed on the adjourned date. The petitioner-Company shall intimate in advance with regard to the deployment of its trucks for the transportation of goods.” (4). Thereafter, the petitioner has not faced any difficulty in plying its trucks. CWP No.10540 of 2010.doc - 3 – (5). Learned State counsel submits that as and when the petitioner would give advance intimation, adequate security shall be provided to its employees and the vehicles. (6). In view of the above-stated undertaking, I do not deem it necessary to continue with these proceedings. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of, however the directions dated 02.07.2010 are made absolute. (7). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 07.12.2010 vishal shonkar (SURYA KANT) JUDGE