Bharathiya Kudankulam Anumin Thozhilalar Sangam (Bkats) v. The Superintendent Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL and W.M.P(MD)No.3252 of 2025 Bharathiya Kundankulam Anumin Thozhilalar Sangam (BKATS), Reg.No.1432/TVL, Affiliated with Bharathiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS), Represented by its General Secretary, S.Oeikkattan.
... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the District Superintendent of Police, High Ground Road, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli-627 007.
2.The Inspector of Police, Kudankulam Police Station, Kudankulam, Tirunelveli District-627 106.
3.The Site Director, Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project, Kudankulam, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District-627 106.
1/7
4.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Kokkirakulam Roard, Near Science Centre, Kokkirakulam, Tirunelveli -627 009.
... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent Inspector of Police, impugned proceedings, dated 13.11.2024 and thereby quash the same and direct the first respondent to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner Union, dated 16.11.2024 and permit the petitioner Union to conduct peaceful Gate meeting / dharna on any date and any were in front of Company.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Muralikrishnan For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor For R-3 : Mr.C.Muthusaravanan For R-4 : Mr.M.Senthil Ayyanar Government Advocate
ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed to quash the order, dated 13.11.2024 passed by the second respondent Inspector of Police and direct the first respondent to consider the representation submitted by the 2/7
petitioner Union, dated 16.11.2024 and permit the petitioner Union to conduct peaceful Gate meeting / dharna on any date and any were in front of Company.
2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is the Trade Union and they have some demands. Therefore, they want to conduct dharna in a peaceful manner near the Gate but the same was not considered in favour of the petitioner and the second respondent rejected the request made by the petitioner. Though the said request was for a particular date on 19.11.2024 and the said date was over still they have some grievance in respect of the said Committee. Therefore, they may be permitted to conduct dharna in any one of the gate.
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the request of the petitioner was received and after enquiry, it was rejected. Moreover, the particular date was on 19.11.2024 and now the said period was over and the prayer in the petition become infructuous.
3/7
4. The learned Counsel appearing for the third respondent would submit that the demand of the petitioner is to constitute a Committee under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. Thereafter, the committee was constituted in accordance with law and therefore, nothing survives for further adjudication.
5. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the fourth respondent also would submit that the demand of the petitioner is to constitute a Committee under Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 and the Committee was constituted. Therefore, nothing survives for further adjudication.
6. This Court had heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
7. The prayer of the petitioner to set aside the order passed by the second respondent, dated 13.11.2024 and that order was rejected. The 4/7
request of the petitioner to conduct protest on 19.11.2024. Since the said date was already lapsed, nothing survives for further adjudication in the present writ petition. However, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner still want to agitate for the constitution of Committee and they have some other demands to withdraw their complaints, if so the petitioner is at liberty to approach the second respondent with a fresh proposal and it is for the second respondent to consider the same in accordance with law on merits.
8. With the above observations, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed.
20.02.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes BTR To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Office of the District Superintendent of Police, High Ground Road, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli-627 007.
5/7
2.The Inspector of Police, Kudankulam Police Station, Kudankulam, Tirunelveli District-627 106.
3.The Site Director, Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project, Kudankulam, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District-627 106.
4.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Kokkirakulam Roard, Near Science Centre, Kokkirakulam, Tirunelveli -627 009.
6/7
P.DHANABAL, J.
BTR 20.02.2025 7/7