WP(C) 6070/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA Heard Mr. SS Dey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also hard Mr. G Soren, learned State counsel appearing for the respondents. Considering the grievance raised in this petition and also as agreed to by the l earned counsel appearing for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed o f at the motion stage itself. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the responde nt authorities for taking appropriate action in terms of the Dispur Police Stati on Case being Dispur PS Case No.1486/10 registered under Section 143/341/511 of the IPC thereby providing appropriate and adequate security to the petitioner fo r moving out Mud Tank System loaded on five numbers of heavy transport carriers (Trolley Trucks) bearing registration Nos.NL-01D/3469, NL-01D/8369, NL-01D/7369, NL-01D/2763 and NL-01D/5163 from the factory of the petitioner for supplying to Oil India Ltd. (’OIL’ for short) and Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (’IOC’ for sho rt). The petitioner is a duly registered Company having its registered office at Guwa hati. The petitioner was awarded the work of assembling/fabrication and commissi oning of Mud Tank System at Well No.308, Duliajan by the public sector Company O IL, Duliajan vide Purchase Order No.126351/DJLL dated 7.12.2004. The final date of supply and commissioning of the said materials by the petitioner has been fix ed on 31.12.2010 by OIL as per their letter dated 12.10.2010 in terms of the sub sisting contract between the petitioner and OIL and in the event of failure of t he petitioner, several penal consequences including impounding of Bank Guarantee s submitted by the petitioner for the aforesaid work order are likely to visit t he petitioner. More so, the materials being meant to be supplied for a project o f national importance, the petitioner is otherwise duty bound to supply the same within the stipulated period. The entire materials liable to be supplied to OIL have since been made ready loaded on carriers on 17.10.2010 itself at the facto ry premises of the petitioner and the same are at present stationed at the facto ry premises since 17.10.2010. The said carriers truck have been hired by the pet itioner from a transport company and the petitioner is being debited Rs.12,500/- per day since 17.10.2010 as halting charge of the trucks. In the meanwhile, due to non-cooperation from a section of workmen, the petitioner had to issue Lock Out Notice of its factory on 5.8.2010. A conciliation proceeding between the Man agement and the Workers having failed, the same has been referred to the Govt. o f Assam for Industrial adjudication. Thus, some of the workers had resorted to b lockade of the gate of the factory since 17.10.2010 thereby not allowing the tru cks loaded with the aforesaid materials to be supplied from moving out of the fa ctory premises. Finding no other alternative, the petitioner Company had to issu e Notice on 26.10.2010 calling upon the workmen not to resort to the illegal mea ns, copies whereof have also been sent to the Labour Officer, Assistant Labour C ommissioner, Labour Commissioner & Secretary, Labour Department to the govt. of Assam. However, the aforesaid Notice did not evoke any favourable response from the workers. The petitioner Company, therefore, again renewed its appeal to the workers vide Notice dated 29.10.2010 with copies to the aforesaid authorities. T hereafter, on various occasions, petitioner Company has approached the police au thority to do the needful so as to enable the petitioner Company to remove the v ehicles from the petitioner’s factory premises for delivery to OIL, Duliajan. Th ough on 29.10.2010, a police case was registered being Dispur PS Case 1486/10 un der Section 143/341/511 IPC, the police authority has not come forward to help t he petitioner in removing the aforesaid loaded truck from the factory premises. Hence, having no other alternative, the petitioner has approached this Court wit h the aforesaid prayer. As per direction of this Court dated 16.11.2010, Mr. Soren, learned State counse l has obtained necessary instruction and submitted on the basis of the instructi on so received by him that since the dispute between the Management and the work men has not been resolved and Lock Out of the factory is still continuing, polic e security could not be provided as prayed for, as the police felt that their pr esence could worsen the situation. Mr. Dey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed before this Cou rt a decision rendered by the Madras High Court reported in 1991 (2) MLJ 329 (K. C.P. Ltd. vs. Inspector of Police, Tiruvottiyur and Ors.), wherein in an exactly similar situation relying upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in BR Si ngh and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in (1989) 2 LLJ 591, at para 2 1 and 23, the court had held as thus: 21. The principles laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Coimbato re Periyar District Motor Transport Munnetra Sangam (by its President) Vs. Sivak umar Transports, Tirupur and Others (supra) is very clear on this aspect, viz. i f the preventing of removal of the goods would involve only the monetary interes t of the management and no public interest is involved, the Court may consider n ot helping the management and non interfering in the dispute by way of any injun ction orders and that if the facts and circumstances are such as that it is just and necessary to permit the goods to be removed in order to prevent any waste o r loss of goods or that the acts in relation to which injunction is prayed for w ill have no effect on public interest, then injunction against interference with the removal of goods should not be granted. I am of the view that if not granti ng an injunction will tantamount to affecting public interest, the Court is duty bound to give such protection as is needed. I am entirely in agreement with the judgment of Mohan J. (as he then was) that police protection, if ordered, might crush lawful and peaceful strikes and demonstration. I am of the view that the order of this Court for police protection if available in the hands of unscrupul ous management, should not be allowed to suppress the legitimate agitations. The Supreme Court in Andi Mukta Sadguru Sri Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti M ahotsav Smarak Trust Vs- VR Rudani and Others 1989-II-LLJ 324 has recently consi dered the scope of issuance of a writ of mandamus and observed as follows in par a 22 at page 331: .... the judicial control over the fast expending maze of bod ies affecting the rights of the people should not be put into water tight compar tment. It should remain flexible to meet the requirements of variable circumstan ces. Mandamus is a very wide remedy which must be easily available to reach inju stice wherever it is found. Technicalities should not come in the way of grantin g that relief under Article 226.. 23. Considering the issue in this case, I am of the view that with regard to th e order of Sri Lanka Sugar Corporation of Colombo, the non-dispatch of the artic les would affect the interest of the nations, especially the international marke t. So also, with regard to dispatch of the articles to the Challapalli Sugars Lt d., at Lakshmipuram Unit, (I am of the view) the interest of the nation and indu strial growth are more important than the interest of handful of workers. Taking the view that the request made in this case would come within the reasoning of the Division Bench of this Court, cited supra, I am of the opinion, that the pol ice protection should be ordered. I could see various requests made by the petit ioner- company to the police authorities and it seems no action has been taken b y them. I am of the view that they are duty bound to give protection for the rem oval of the articles mentioned in Schs. A and B in the petition. As such, a dire ction is to issue to respondents 1 and 2 herein to give police protection and th e articles mentioned in Schs. A and B in the petition would be removed in the pr esence of the representatives of the third respondent- Union to verify whether t he articles to be removed are concerned with the orders placed with (1) Sri Lank a Sugar Corporation of Colombo and with (2) the Challapalli Sugars of India Ltd . at Lakshmipuram Unit. With regard to weighment the drawings will show the weig hment. While coming to the conclusion as above, the Court relied upon a decisio n in Coromandel Prodorite (P) Ltd., Madhavaran vs. Deputy Inspector General of P olice, wherein the learned Judge while issuing writ of mandamus observed as foll ows: ...When it is a question of promoting the national interest, the rights of few workers cannot be put on an higher pedestal. The interests of the nation are imp ortant than that of handful of workers. If the preventing of dispatch of finishe d goods would involve only the financial interest of the management and does not affect anybody else, the Court may not help the management and interfere in the dispute. If the facts and circumstances are such that the non-dispatch of the f inished goods would affect the interest of the nation as a whole, it is the duty of this Court to interfere and prevent the workers from obstructing such dispat ch. It cannot be contended that the workers’ right to strike would go to the ext ent of authorizing them to harm the interest of the nation... I have given anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the decisions relied upon by Mr. Dey . The facts and circumstances of the case in hand would reveal that if supply of Mud Tank System loaded on five numbers of heavy transport carriers (Trolley Tru cks) as mentioned hereinabove are not allowed to move from the factory of the pe titioner to OIL and IOC Ltd., the ongoing projects of OIL and IOC would suffer. That cannot be allowed to happen for a handful of workers as it is the national cause which will ultimately be affected. Thus, in the line of the judgment in KC P Ltd. (supra) this Court is of the view that police protection, as prayed for, be granted, inasmuch as, the petitioner Company has made various requests to the police authority praying for protection so as to enable them to carry out Mud T ank System loaded on five numbers of heavy transport carriers (Trolley Trucks) f rom the premises of the petitioner’s Company to deliver the same to the OIL and IOC Ltd. Respondent Nos.3 and 5 are, therefore, directed to give appropriate and adequate police protection to the petitioner Company for moving out the Mud Tank System loaded on five numbers of heavy transport carriers (Trolley Trucks) bearing regi stration Nos.NL-01D/3469, NL-01D/8369, NL-01D/7369, NL-01D/2763 and NL-01D/5163 from the factory premises of the petitioner for supplying to OIL and IOC. Howeve r, it is also made clear that the police would verify whether the articles to be removed are concerned with the orders placed with them by the OIL and IOC Ltd. Petitioner shall submit a certified copy of this order before the respondent No. 5 who shall do the needful as directed by this Court. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.