Anna Thozhilarar Sangam v. The Superintendent of Police

O R D E R This Writ Petition (Criminal) has been filed to quash the order passed by the 3rd respondent vide Na.Ka.No.06/Ka.Aa/Ki.Ka.Va/2025, dated

07.09.2025, thereby denied to grant of permission to conduct the proposed gate meeting of Petitioner/Sangam and consequently, to direct the 3rd respondent to grant permission for conducting the peaceful protest with adequate protection in future days at the premises of the 4th respondent company.

¶2The 4th respondent herein approached this Court in W.P.No.11100 of 2025 seeking adequate police protection at the hands of the Petitioner/Sangam and this Court by an order dated 02.06.2026 passed the following order:- "2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶3The petitioner is in the business of manufacturing of tyres, tubes and conveyor belts. It employs thousand of individuals, including permanent workmen, trainees and contract workers. A demand has been raised from the third respondent concerning the revision of wages and other related issues. In this regard, a conciliation process was initiated between the petitioner and the third respondent, however, the matter remains unsolved. Subsequently, the third respondent issued a strike notice and the petitioner apprehends that there may be obstruction to the ingress and egress of vehicles and workers. Therefore, the petitioner has lodged a complaint and also sought police protection.

¶4Considering the above facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to grant police protection to the petitioner's factory premises to ensure ingress and egress of vehicles and workers in and around of the factory premises.

¶5Accordingly, the first respondent is directed to give police protection, upon payment of necessary costs to the petitioner's factory premises and ensure the safety of labourers. Furthermore, the third respondent is hereby restrained from conducting or participating in any strike by assembling a large number of persons within or in the vicinity of 200 meters from petitioner's factory premises."

¶3In view of the above order passed by this Court, the prayer sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition has become infructuous.

¶4Accordingly, the Writ Petition (Criminal) is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

07.07.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order dm To

1.The Superintendent of Police, Ranipet District, Ranipet.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Arakkonam Range, Ranipet District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Arakkonam Rural Police Station, Arakkonam District.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai. G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN

, J.

dm

07.07.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 07.07.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN and W.P.MP.(Crl).No.519 of 2025 Anna Thozhilalar Sangam, Rep. by its President, Mr.G.Podhumani M/a-43 years Arakkonam MRF, Arakkonam, Ranipet District. … Petitioner vs. 1.The Superintendent of Police, Ranipet District, Ranipet. 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Arakkonam Range, Ranipet District. 3.The Inspector of Police, Arakkonam Rural Police Station, Arakkonam District. 4.The Management of MRF Ltd, Rep by its General Manager, Arakonam – Thiruthani Road, Ichiputhur – Arakonam 631003, Ranipet District. … Respondents PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in vide Na.Ka.No.06/Ka.Aa/Ki.Ka.Va/2025 dated 07.09.2025 and to quash the same, consequently directing the 3rd respondent to grant permission for conducting the peaceful protest with adequate protection in future days at the premises of the 4th respondent company. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Babu For R1 to R3 : Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) For R4 : Mr.M.Vijayan for M/s.King and Patridge