COCP No.1260 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.1260 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.7.2009 Sandeep Kumar ......Petitioner(s) Versus Sh. Ashish Chaudhary, SSP, Bathinda & Ors. ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Jaspreet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.C. Berry, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. A.S. Jattana, Advocate for respondent No.3. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) CM No.17370-CII of 2009 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Written statement on behalf of respondent No.3 is taken on record. COCP No.1260 of 2009 Reply on behalf of respondent No.1 has been filed in Court today which is taken on record. As per the averments made in this petition, the petitioner is running a cold storage at Rampura Phul, District Bathinda. The petitioner had his own arrangement for transportation of potatoes from the aforesaid cold storage to different destinations. However, the Truck Union of Rampura Phul used to threaten the petitioner as they wanted him to hire trucks from them. According to the petitioner, the truck union was not allowing him and others to hire trucks from outside and the petitioner and COCP No.1260 of 2009 (O&M) 2 others had to pay much more than what they would have to pay if they hire trucks on their own. Faced with this difficulty, the petitioner along with 13 other cold storage owners filed CWP No.6019 of 2008 titled as M/s Kissan Cold Storage and others v. State of Punjab for directing the official respondents to provide police protection to them for the execution of handling and transportation of trucks hired by the petitioners at the cold stores at Rampura Phul. The aforesaid civil writ petition was disposed of by passing the following order:- “Through the instant petition, the petitioners have sought direction to respondents No.1 to 5 to provide them and their employees police protection for execution/performance of handling and transport of trucks hired by them at the cold stores at Rampura Phul. Written statement on behalf of respondents No.1 to 5 has been filed in Court today, copy thereof has been furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned State counsel after obtaining instructions from Balwinder Singh DSP Rampura Phul, states that the petitioners or their employees shall be provided police protection as and when intimation in that regard is given to them. Accordingly the writ petition shall stand disposed of and the respondents shall remain bound by the undertaking given to this Court. Sd/- M.M.Kumar, Judge Sd/- Sabina, Judge April 22, 2008.” In another writ petition No.1498 of 2008 which was also filed by one of the cold storage owners, the following order was passed:- COCP No.1260 of 2009 (O&M) 3 “Through the instant petition, the petitioner has sought direction to the State police authorities-respondents No.1 to 4, to provide him and his employees police protection for execution/performance of handling and transport of trucks hired by him at the cold store at Rampura Phul and at the agricultural land in village Krawala, Rampura Phul. After the filing of this petition, the respondents have provided police protection to the petitioner and he will be satisfied if at the time of need again such a protection is provided. Learned State counsel, after obtaining instructions from Balwinder Singh, DSP Rampura Phul, states that the petitioner or his employees shall be provided police protection as and when intimation in that regard is given to them. Accordingly the writ petition stands disposed of and the respondents shall remain bound by the undertaking given to this Court. Sd/- M.M.Kumar, Judge Sd/- Sabina, Judge April 22, 2008.” Despite giving an undertaking in the Court, the official respondents failed to provide protection to the petitioners and the private respondents flouted the orders of this Court passed in CWP Nos. 6019 of 2008 and 1498 of 2008 with the connivance of the official-respondents as in spite of the registration of an FIR, no steps were taken by the official- respondents to arrest those persons. In these circumstances, Crl.M.No.M- 19894 of 2008 was filed in this Court by one of the cold storage owners in which the following order was passed: “Learned State counsel on the instructions of Butta COCP No.1260 of 2009 (O&M) 4 Singh SI, SHO, Police Station Rampura Phul, informs that as and when there is any imminent danger to the petitioner or any threat to the peace and tranquillity, necessary action will immediately be taken. This petition is disposed of with a direction that respondents will immaculately comply with the directions passed by Division Bench of this Court on 22.4.2008 and in case of any representation/complaint made by the petitioner, would look into matter and take necessary action. Copy of the order be sent to the SSP, Bathinda, for necessary compliance with liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court again in case of any imminent danger to the petitioner in the conduct of their business. Sd/ - M.M.S. Bedi Judge February 4, 2009.” Despite the aforesaid orders passed by this Court, the petitioner and others were not being given adequate security and protection by the respondents. On 7.7.2009, the private respondents had taken away the truck which was loaded with potatoes owned by the petitioner and an FIR No.142 dated 9.7.2009 was registered in P.S. Sangrur, District Sangrur under sections 382 and 365 of the IPC. The driver of the truck was also beaten up by the private respondents and they took away the documents of the Truck. It is the further case of the petitioner that private respondents No. 3 to 6 along with others caused injuries to the petitioner on 10.7.2009 for which FIR No. 111 dated 10.7.2009 was registered under sections 382, 341, 323, 506,148, 149 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act at Police Station Rampura Phul. In spite of the COCP No.1260 of 2009 (O&M) 5 aforesaid happening, the petitioner came to know that instead of investigating the aforesaid FIR and provide private security to the petitioners, the official-respondents discharged the private respondents in FIR No. 111 dated 10.7.2009 registered at Police Station Rampura Phul and as such the private respondents and other members of Truck Union, Rampura Phul have got emboldened and are continuing with there illegal acts. It has been further stated by the petitioner that now the season of potatoes is at its full swing and the private respondents are harassing the petitioner and are threatening him. They are not allowing him to hire his own private trucks for the transportation of his goods and are compelling him to hire trucks from the Truck Union, Rampura Phul and to pay much more than the petitioner would have paid if he had hired his own private transportation . On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondents have committed the contempt of this court by not obeying the various orders passed by this Court in CWP Nos. 6019 of 2008, 1498 of 2008 and Crl.M.No.M-19894 of 2008 and are guilty of contempt of this Court. It is also prayed by the counsel for the petitioner that the respondents should be directed to provide protection in the form of security men to ensure the safe passage of the vehicles engaged by the petitioner and similarly situated other persons in the territory of Punjab as and when required by them. I have also heard learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3. At the outset Mr. M.C. Berry, Additional Advocate General, Punjab appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 has stated that an opportunity be given to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda to investigate the whole matter and to take necessary steps to ensure the safety of the carriers/vehicles engaged by the petitioner for his business COCP No.1260 of 2009 (O&M) 6 and also to take appropriate steps to apprehend the culprits in FIR No. 111 dated 10.7.2009, Police Station Rampura Phul. It may also be pointed out that learned State counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 has no objection to the demand of the petitioners and has assured on behalf of the aforesaid respondents that the needful will be done. Mr. A.S. Jattana, Advocate, on instructions from respondent No.3, has stated that the truck Union Rampura Phul will not interfere in the transportation of goods from the cold stores of the petitioners on vehicles engaged by them which do not belong to the truck Union of Rampura Phul. Learned counsel has also assured that the documents of the truck Trailer bearing registration No.PB-29F-895 shall be returned to the petitioner within two days. In view of the aforesaid assurance given by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents which shall be binding upon them, I am not inclined to proceed further in this contempt petition. The present petition is disposed of at this stage. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to revive the present contempt petition in case he has any fresh grievance. Rule discharged. July 29, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE