C.Dasprakash v. The Commissioner Of Police, Tiruchirappalli City,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 19/11/2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN W.P.CRL.(MD). No.1909 of 2025 and W.M.P.Crl(MD) No.455 of 2025 C.Dasprakash ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Commissioner of Police, Tiruchirappalli City, Tiruchirappalli District0-620020.
2.The Inspector of Police, Gandhi Market Police Station, Tiruchirappalli District-620 008.
3. Kuzhanthaiantony Selvaraj
4. G.K.Ramar
5. Siva Perumal
6. M.Ramachandran
7. Muthuramalingam
8. Solaipandi
9. Periyannan 1/7
10. Vija
11. Karthi
12. Ajay
13. Andi
14. Premkumar
15. Sanjay
16. Arumugam ... Respondents PRAYER :- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to provide necessary Police Protection to the petitioner office under the name and style of M/s. Sekar Brothers Lorry Booking Office and having office at No.33, Paikadai Sandu, GandhiMarket, Tiruchirappalli Distric, as well as petitioner employees and agent's life and limb and to enable them to conduct their logistic of goods business in Tiruchirappalli District, based on the petitioner representation dated 30.09.2025.
For Petitioner : Mr.M Senthilkumar, Advocate.
For R1 and R2 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi, 2/7
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to provide police protection to the petitioner, who is running a concern under the name and style of M/s. Sekar Brothers Lorry Booking Office as well as to his employees and to enable them to conduct their business in Tiruchirappalli District, based on his representation dated 30.09.2025. 2.It is the case of the petitioner that they are running a company; that the private respondents are preventing the petitioner from conducting their business peacefully; that the private respondents are also preventing the petitioner from engaging other employees; and that they are forcing the petitioner to engage only the persons suggested by the private respondents.
3.The learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 16, however, would submit that the respondents had never resorted to illegal activities; that they belong to a responsible trade union and have only sought for their demands in a peaceful manner. He would further submit that the 3/7
respondents 4 to 16 have also filed an undertaking affidavit stating that they will not illegally interfere in the petitioner's business activities. 4.The paragraphs No.3 and 4 of the affidavit filed by the fourth respondent on behalf of himself and the other respondents are extracted here for better understanding:
3.I state that the petitioner has levelled allegation against our union and its members, stating that we are resorting to illegal activities against the lorry booking office owners and thereby disturbing the normal functioning of his business.
4. I state that as a responsible trade union in the Gandhi Market we are functioning in peaceful manner and solving our demands in the presence of the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Tiruchirappalli. I hereby undertake that our Union and its members will not resort to any illegal activities and cause disturbance to the peaceful functioning of the petitioner and other owners business. If members of our union resort to any illegal activities and create any law and order problem, the law and order authority can proceed any law and order problem, the law and order authority can proceed against them in accordance with law. I assure that our union and our 4/7
members will maintain the peace and we solve our demands in accordance with law.
5.It is needless to say that no person can take the law into his own hands. The respondents 4 to 16 have now undertaken that they will not disturb the peaceful functioning of the petitioner's business. Hence, it is made clear that if the respondents 4 to 16 or any other person illegally prevent the petitioner from conducting their business, the Official respondents are at liberty to take appropriate action as they deem fit, in accordance with law.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 16 would submit that they have a right to protest.
7. Though the respondents 4 to 16 have a right to protest, their protest cannot violate the law and in any case, prevent the petitioner or his employees working peacefully.
8.With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. 5/7
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 19.11.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No cp/ars TO
1. The Commissioner of Police, Tiruchirappalli City, Tiruchirappalli District0-620020.
2. The Inspector of Police, Gandhi Market Police Station, Tiruchirappalli District-620 008.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/7
SUNDER MOHAN,J CP /ars
ORDER
IN WP CRL.(MD) No.1909 of 2025 Date : 19/11/2025 7/7