Limited, Time‑Bound Police Protection for Removal of Lawfully Owned Goods During Industrial Agitations: AP High Court’s Direction with Cost-Sharing

Case: Realme Mobile Telecommunications (India) Pvt Ltd and Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.

Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati

Bench: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa

Decision Date: 18 September 2025

Writ Petition No.: 25285 of 2025

Introduction

The writ petition was brought by Realme Mobile Telecommunications (India) Pvt Ltd and its Director seeking a direction to the State’s police machinery to provide effective protection to their employees and logistics operations to ensure unobstructed ingress and egress for lifting and transporting manufactured items stored at their leased premises located in the Electronics Manufacturing Cluster (EMC‑II), Vikruthamala Village, Tirupati District. The petitioners asserted that they had purchased stock from Respondent No. 8 (Wingtech Mobile Communications India Pvt Ltd) and faced obstruction due to an ongoing strike by the 8th respondent’s workers.

The primary relief sought was continuous police protection to enable movement of personnel, trucks, and material-handling contractors, and to prevent interference by striking workers or their agents. The writ was directed against Home and Police authorities (including the Superintendent of Police, Tirupati District, and Station House Officers), as well as relevant revenue and labour authorities, and the private respondents (Wingtech and Luxshare).

At hearing, the petitioners emphasized that they had already made a representation to the police seeking protection and had also obtained permissions from the Revenue Divisional Officer and Joint Collector to lift the stock. The Government Pleader for Home stated the Court may pass appropriate orders.

Summary of the Judgment

• The Court issued a limited, time‑bound direction to the “concerned Station House Officer” to look into the petitioners’ representation and attend to their cause “within a couple of days.”
• The SHO was directed to take appropriate steps with necessary police personnel to ensure that the petitioners’ stock is lifted from the company without any untoward incident.
• The Court clarified that the petitioners must bear the expenditure for the police deployment.
• The writ petition was disposed of with these directions, without costs, and all pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Factual and Procedural Background

• Petitioners: Realme Mobile Telecommunications (India) Pvt Ltd and its Director, Mr. Manish Rana.
• Private Respondents: Wingtech Mobile Communications India Pvt Ltd (R‑8), at Vikruthamala Village, Tirupati District; Luxshare Lanto India Pvt Ltd (R‑9).
• State Respondents: Home Department (R‑1, R‑10), Superintendent of Police, Tirupati (R‑2), SHO Renigunta Urban Police Station (R‑3), Sub‑Inspector, Yerpedu Police Station (R‑4), and relevant Revenue and Labour authorities (R‑5 to R‑7).
• Relief Sought: A writ directing the police to provide continuous, effective, and meaningful protection to facilitate logistics (ingress/egress of employees and trucks) and prevent obstruction by striking workers of R‑8 to the transport of manufactured items stored in the petitioners’ leased premises at specified plots in EMC‑II, Vikruthamala Village.
• Petitioners’ submissions: They had approached the police by representation for protection and had obtained permissions from the Revenue Divisional Officer and Joint Collector to lift the stock purchased from R‑8.

Core Holding and Operative Directions

The Court exercised its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to issue a pragmatic, limited mandamus: the concerned SHO must consider the representation and provide necessary police deployment to ensure that the petitioners’ stock is lifted safely and without incident, within a short, specified window (“within a couple of days”). The Court expressly shifted the financial burden of such deployment to the petitioners. The larger, open‑ended prayer for “continuous” protection was implicitly trimmed to a targeted, time‑bound operation focused on the removal of goods.

Analysis

1) Scope and Character of Relief

The order exemplifies a “limited mandamus” tailored to the immediate purpose of enabling the removal of goods in a strike‑affected industrial eco‑system, without embroiling the Court in the merits of the labour dispute. Notably:

• Time‑bound implementation: The Court required action “within a couple of days,” emphasizing urgency and administrative accountability without prescribing a rigid clock that could complicate field deployment.
• Narrow purpose: Relief is confined to ensuring the lifting of stock; it does not extend to a standing, indefinite police presence or to generalised protection orders beyond what is needed for this operation.
• Cost‑sharing: Petitioners must bear the costs of special police deployment, consistent with the administrative practice of charging “bandobast” fees for event‑ or task‑specific policing beyond routine duty.
• Deference to police discretion: By directing the SHO to “look into the representation” and “take appropriate steps,” the Court respects operational judgment while providing judicial backing to act decisively.

2) Balancing Competing Rights and Interests

The factual matrix implicates competing constitutional and statutory considerations:

• Business and property interests: The petitioners’ right to carry on trade and to move lawfully acquired goods (a facet of Article 19(1)(g) and property/proprietary interests) is protected from unlawful obstruction.
• Workers’ associational and protest rights: While workers may strike or picket peacefully, the law draws a line at obstruction, intimidation, or violence. The Court’s direction does not curb a peaceful strike per se; it targets only the prevention of “untoward incidents” and ensures free ingress/egress and removal of goods.
• Police duty to maintain order: The mandate operationalizes the police’s positive duty to prevent breaches of peace and cognizable offences and to safeguard lawful movement of goods and persons.

The order thus threads the needle between enabling business continuity (or at least recovery of inventory) and not prejudging or interfering with ongoing industrial issues governed by labour law fora.

3) Role of Administrative Permissions (RDO/Joint Collector)

The Court recorded that the petitioners had obtained permissions from the Revenue Divisional Officer and Joint Collector. While the operative direction does not expressly condition relief upon those permissions, the record of such authorizations appears to have reassured the Court of the lawfulness and administrative propriety of the proposed movement of goods. In practice, such permissions can be valuable in showing compliance with local regulatory requirements, route management, and coordination with district authorities during sensitive operations.

4) Trimmed Relief: From “Continuous Protection” to a “One‑Time Operation”

The prayer sought continuous, effective, and meaningful police protection. The Court, however, calibrated relief to the practical necessity at hand—safe removal of stock—signalling judicial reluctance to supervise prolonged industrial policing, which is better managed by executive authorities. This narrowing:

• avoids the optics of policing labour agitations beyond what is strictly necessary to prevent illegality;
• minimizes the risk of over‑breadth and undue chilling of lawful protests; and
• reduces the burden on police resources.

5) Non‑adjudication of Industrial Dispute

The Court carefully refrains from commenting on the merits of any industrial dispute involving Respondent No. 8. The order neither restrains the strike nor adjudicates employer‑employee claims. It solely ensures that a third party who has lawfully purchased and stored goods can retrieve them without unlawful obstruction. The labour rights framework remains intact and to be addressed before competent labour/industrial fora if required.

Precedents Cited in the Judgment

The order does not cite case law. It is a concise, fact‑specific directive grounded in established writ practice and the police’s duty to maintain law and order.

Contextual Jurisprudence (Not Cited in the Order, Provided for Understanding)

• Article 226, Constitution of India: High Courts can issue writs, including mandamus, to public authorities to perform public duties, especially where prompt intervention prevents breach of peace or rights violations.
• Article 19 balancing: Businesses have a right to carry on trade (Article 19(1)(g)), while workers have rights to association and peaceful assembly. Lawful protest cannot escalate into coercive obstruction of ingress/egress or destruction of property.
• Police duty: Statutory and common law principles impose a duty on police to prevent cognizable offences and maintain public order, which includes facilitating safe passage for lawful movement of goods and persons during volatile situations.
• Cost of special deployment: Courts often permit charging beneficiaries for special police arrangements necessitated by private or localized needs, a practice reflected here by the Court’s direction that petitioners bear the expenditure.

These principles, though not expressly cited, inform the tenor and structure of the relief granted.

Impact and Implications

A) For Businesses Operating Within Industrial Clusters

• Rapid recourse: The order signals that businesses can obtain swift, targeted police assistance through writ jurisdiction when faced with obstruction during industrial agitations, particularly for one‑time logistics operations like lifting stock.
• Documentation matters: Prior representation to the police and obtaining relevant administrative permissions strengthen the case for relief and facilitate operational coordination.
• Budget for bandobast: Applicants should anticipate bearing costs for special police deployment.

B) For Police Administration

• Operational clarity: The Court vests the “concerned SHO” with responsibility to assess and arrange appropriate protection within a short horizon, reinforcing accountability.
• SOP reinforcement: The decision underlines the expectation that police proactively prevent untoward incidents while respecting lawful protests.

C) For Labour Relations and Industrial Peace

• Boundary setting: The order reiterates that while strikes may proceed, they cannot lawfully morph into obstruction that prevents a non‑party from moving lawfully owned goods.
• No fetter on collective action per se: The direction is purpose‑specific and does not restrain peaceful protest or resolve substantive labour demands.

D) For Litigation Strategy

• Limited mandamus is effective: Applicants may succeed more readily with tailored, time‑bound requests focused on a discrete logistics operation than with broad, continuous protection prayers.
• Coordination with civil and labour fora: Where underlying disputes exist, parallel proceedings before labour authorities may continue unimpeded; writ relief should avoid trespassing into those domains.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Writ of Mandamus: A judicial command to a public authority to perform a public duty. Here, it takes the form of a directive to the SHO to act on a representation and provide protection to ensure safe lifting of goods.
• Police Protection Orders: Judicial directions to deploy police to prevent breaches of peace or unlawful obstruction. Such orders are often time‑bound and may require the beneficiary to pay deployment costs (bandobast charges).
• Ingress and Egress: Legal shorthand for the right to enter and exit premises freely. Interference with ingress/egress—especially by coercion—is unlawful.
• Representation: A formal request or complaint submitted to an authority. Courts commonly direct authorities to “consider” or “act upon” such representations within a timeframe.
• Strike vs. Gherao/Obstruction: A strike is a cessation of work; it is lawful if conducted peacefully. Gherao or coercive obstruction—physically blocking movement of persons or goods—can invite police intervention.

Nuances and Limitations

• Targeted relief only: The order does not provide a standing police presence; it is operationally limited to enabling removal of stock.
• No findings on labour rights: The Court does not adjudicate the validity of the strike or underlying industrial issues.
• Respondent 9’s role: Although Luxshare is arrayed as a respondent, the order does not address any specific grievance against it; relief is framed around the obstruction allegedly linked to the 8th respondent’s workers.
• Implementation discretion: The “concerned SHO” is expected to determine deployment configuration and coordination, maintaining proportionality and minimal interference with lawful protest.

Key Takeaways

• The High Court granted a focused, time‑bound mandamus to the police to ensure safe removal of goods from a strike‑affected facility.
• The order confirms the police’s duty to prevent unlawful obstruction and maintain public order while avoiding adjudication of industrial disputes.
• Applicants seeking similar relief should first approach the police with a detailed representation and, where appropriate, secure necessary administrative permissions.
• Beneficiaries of special police deployment may be required to bear associated costs.
• The decision offers a replicable template for courts to balance business continuity with protest rights in industrial clusters.

Conclusion

Realme v. State of Andhra Pradesh reinforces a practical, legally sound approach to handling logistics disruptions during industrial agitations. By issuing a limited, time‑bound direction to the concerned SHO—paired with a cost‑sharing requirement—the High Court safeguarded lawful movement of goods without trenching upon the substantive rights and disputes of labour. The order illustrates how writ courts can calibrate relief to immediate needs, uphold public order, respect the autonomy of police and administrative authorities, and avoid expansive injunctions that might chill lawful protests. In the broader legal landscape, it stands as a precise, balanced reaffirmation of the State’s duty to prevent unlawful obstruction and of the judiciary’s preference for minimally invasive, purpose‑specific public law remedies in the industrial relations context.