In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh C.W.P.No.6916 of 2008 Date of Decision:12-05-2008 Rakesh Goyal ---Petitioner vs. State of Punjab and others ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Pawan Hooda, Advocate for Mr. KDS Hooda,Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.Suveer Sehgal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab Ms.Meenakshi Dogra, Advocate for Mr. D.S.Brar, Advocate, for respondent No. 6. M.M.KUMAR, J. The prayer made by the petitioner in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is to issue direction to respondents to protect the vehicles/trucks of the petitioner company. The petitioner is engaged in lifting of food grains and other items by his own trucks or the trucks hired by him. The allegation against the truck union-respondent No. 6 is of undue harassment enforcing the petitioner to load or unload goods only through the union. upon the plea respondent-state has not been taking C.W.P.No.6916 of 2008 -2- adequate steps to stop harassment at the hands of respondent no. 6. The petitioner has approached this court. When the matter came up for consideration on 6.5.2008, we had taken notice of the written statement filed by Sh. Bhupinder Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rajpura on behalf of respondents No. 3 and 5. In the affidavit, the specific stand taken is that the necessary police protection has been provided to the vehicles of the petitioner for lifting food grains from the grain market and that the President of the Truck Union Banur has been called in the Police Station and has also been directed not to impede in transportation of food grains by the petitioner's vehicles. The President of the Truck Union has been made aware of the order dated 28.4.2008 passed by this court. However, learned counsel for the petitioner had expressed dissatisfaction about the role of the President, Truck Union, respondent No. 6. In order dated 6.5.2008, we had referred to the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the President of the Truck Union-respondent No. 6 was still pressurizing him to enter into a compromise that 50% of the food grains should be lifted by trucks of the petitioner and the remaining 50% of the food grains should be lifted by the Union-respondent No. 6. However, counsel for respondent No. 6 has stated before us that no pressure is being mounted on the petitioner to enter into any such compromise. Accordingly, we have asked the President of the Truck Union-respondent No. 6 to file specific affidavit undertaking that he would not pressurize the petitioner. In pursuance of the aforesaid direction, an affidavit of Sh.Sadhu Singh, President, Truck Operator Union, Banur, District Patiala has been filed in C.W.P.No.6916 of 2008 -3- Court today. A copy thereof has been given to the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is stated that there is no dispute between the petitioner and respondent no. 6 and respondent no. 6 would never raise any objection regarding lifting of food grains by the petitioner with his own trucks. It is clarified that trucks may belong to the petitioner or he may hire the trucks independently and respondent No. 6 should not raise any objection. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances, we dispose of the writ petition by observing that respondents No. 3 and 5 as well as respondent No. 6 shall remain bound by their undertakings given to this court. We hope and trust that respondent No. 6-truck union would not interfere in the working of the petitioner and if any such thing happened, the same be brought to the notice of respondents No. 3 and 5 or by moving appropriate application before this Court in accordance with law. Writ petition stand disposed of in the above terms. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE (SABINA) JUDGE May 12, 2008 paramjit