CWP No.11138 of 2011 (O&M) and connected case [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) CWP No.11138 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 08.12.2011 Dharam Pal Aggarwal son of Mangu Lal, Dana Mandi, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar. ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab through Secretary to Punjab Government, Department of Transport, Mini Secretariat, Sector-9, Chandigarh and others. ... Respondents (2) CWP No.11139 of 2011 (O&M) M/s Sameer Jindal and Co., Dana Mandi, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar through its Proprietor Sameer Jindal. ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab through Secretary to Punjab Government, Department of Transport, Mini Secretariat, Sector-9, Chandigarh and others. ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:Mr. Mohit Jaggi, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Addl. AG, Punjab. for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. NPS Mann, Advocate, for respondents No.3 and 5. ***** 1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2.To be referred to the reporters or not? NO 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO CWP No.11138 of 2011 (O&M) and connected case [2] K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) 1. Both these cases are connected and they arise under a similar situation. The writ petitions are for issuing of directions to the official respondents, who are the police to provide security and make appropriate arrangements to enable the petitioners to carry on the business free of obstruction from respondents No.3 to 5, who being the members of the Truck Operators' Union are harassing the petitioners for not registering with their Union and causing obstructions to their business. The State has filed reply stating that if there is any specific complaint given of specific harassment of persons belonging to the Union, they would take appropriate action. The reply has also filed for respondents No.3 to 5, who are the members of the Union contending that the Union has never interfered in working or plying of trucks of non-members including the petitioners, and the allegations made against respondents No.3 to 5 are false. They will particularly join issues on the petitioners' contention and state that they have not deflated the tyres or stopped the petitioners from plying trucks and contend that such allegations against them are false. 2. The affirmation of respondents No.3 to 5 is specifically noted to bind them at all future events and the petitioners will have justifiable cause of action for appropriate complaint to the police if there has been a breach of what is stated before this Court through the written statement. 3. Having regard to the specific stand taken by the State, they will afford the appropriate protection to the petitioners in case of any untoward incident. The petitions are closed leaving with the liberty to the respective parties to approach the police authorities for action in accordance with law, if there is any CWP No.11138 of 2011 (O&M) and connected case [3] obstruction by one against the other in respect of the lawful activities. 4. Both the writ petitions are disposed of. DECEMBER 08, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE