RAGHAVENDRA WARE HOUSING H AND T CONTRACTOR KAKINADA EAST GODAVARI Vs. STATE OF A P REP BY SUOERINTENDENT OF POLICE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT KAKINADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, a handling and transportation contractor, was awarded with handling and transportation contract of food grains by the fifth respondent - A.P. State Warehousing for a period of two years in respect of Dawarapudi (Investors Godown) at Dawarapudi, East Godavari District.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that a group of 50 local people are not allowing the petitioner to take up the said contract work with the help of its labourers and are making a demand that the entire contract work should be entrusted to the local people only and on account of the illegal and unlawful demand and criminal activity, the handling and transportation at the said godown by the petitioner is seriously affected. On account of the said obstruction to the workers of the petitioner from attending to the work on behalf of the fifth respondent undertaking, the petitioner requested for police protection under representation dated 03.11.2011 by personally apprising respondents 1 to 4. The fifth respondent was also informed of the said obstruction and one of the investors under their letter dated 16.11.2011 has been in turn pressurizing the petitioner to sort out the said problem immediately. As there was no action on behalf of respondents 1 to 4, petitioner filed the present writ petition to enforce the duties of respondents 1 to 4 to maintain law and order and also to protect petitioner's labour in order to carry out the operations at the godown.

(3.) Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance on the duties of Police Officers, as envisaged under Section 21 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) District Police Act, 1859 (for short 'the Act') and submits that the unauthorized obstruction to the lawful work of the petitioner on behalf of the fifth respondent and failure of respondents 1 to 4 in discharging their legal duty of protection, affects the petitioner's right to carry on lawful business. Learned senior counsel points out that, on the one hand, petitioner is not allowed to carry on its lawful work at the instance of the unauthorized and illegal acts of local people and the fifth respondent, on the other hand, is holding petitioner responsible for consequences arising out of financial losses.