IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P NO. 1934 OF 2009 DECIDED ON : 06.02.2009 M/S Ashok Kumar and Co. ...Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT Present : Mr. Dheeraj Bali, Advocate, for the petitioner. SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) Notice of motion. Mr. G. S. Attariwala, Additional AG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2. Keeping in view the nature of the order which I propose to pass, there appears to be no necessity to issue any notice of motion to respondents No.3 and 4 at this stage or to seek any counter affidavit from t he official respondents. The petitioner is an authorized contractor of the Food Corporation of India, who has been given a contract w.e.f 01.01.2009 to 31.12.2011 for transportation of the food grains from Sahnewal Depot to Rail Head, Sahnewal. He has already deposited the security amount of Rs.1,71,000/- with the Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, Ludhiana. C.W.P NO. 1934 OF 2009 -2- The petitioner's allegations are that respondents No.3 and 4, who are Presidents of two different Truck Unions operating at Sahnewal, in a totally illegal and unlawful manner, compelling him to hire the Trucks of their Unions and then only they will permit it to transport the food grains in terms of the contract awarded in the petitioner's favour. The petitioner's further grievance is that even when he has already reported the matter to the police authorities, including the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana and respondent No.2, no action whatsoever is being taken to protect the petitioner's life, liberty or property, may be due to the alleged connivance with the Truck Unions. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, I am of the considered view that if there is a grain of truth in these allegations, in that event, it is imperative upon the police authorities to take immediate remedial measures to ensure that the petitioner's right to carry on its business and trade in a lawful manner, as guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution, is not violated at the hands of anyone including respondents NO.3 and 4. In some what similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 04.10.2008 passed in C.W.P No.18143 of 2006 (Manjinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and others) held as follows : C.W.P NO. 1934 OF 2009 -3- “In our considered view, respondent No.3 as well as the subordinate police officials of the 'area concerned' ought to have been remindful of the fact that the petitioner enjoys a constitutional right to carry on his business and trade in a lawful manner, as guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. Equally important is the protection of his life and liberty as also those of his employees, the drivers of the trucks hired by him or the labour engaged to work. The police authorities could not have neglected their duty to protect the constitutional or legal rights of the petitioner or of his employees of the drivers engaged by him to carry on his/their day-to-day business activities”. For the reasons afore-stated, however, without expressing any views on the merits of the petitioner's allegations at this stage, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana and Station House Officer, Sahnewal, District Ludhiana, to take immediate and prompt action in terms of the directions issued by this Court vide judgment dated 04.10.2008 in Manjinder Singh's case (supra), a copy of which shall also be supplied to the petitioner along with certified copy of this order. C.W.P NO. 1934 OF 2009 -4- Copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges. FEBRUARY 06, 2009 (SURYA KANT) shalini JUDGE