The Order of the Court was as follows :

These applications are filed by the applicant/plaintiff to grant an order of Interim Injunction restraining the respondents and their men from pasting, sticking or in any manner exhibiting any banner, placards or posters or wall writing or such other material anywhere in the applicant's office at No. 2, Haddows Road, Chennai-6, to grant interim injunction restraining them from preventing ingress and egress of the officers and others and vehicular movements from and out of the applicant's office premises and also interim injunction restraining them from holding any demonstration, shouting slogans, gathering in number on dharnas and going on fast unto death or relay fast inside and in front of the office premises of the applicant pending disposal of the suit.

The case in brief for disposal of all the applications is as follows :

The applicant is a statutory Corporation established under Food Corporation of India Act, 1964 to procure, store and distribute foodgrains. They are having offices throughout India and the applicant is controlling the activities of the offices in the Southern States and the Union Territories of Pondicherry and Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The applicant is a wholly subsidised Corporation of the Government of India and it is established to serve the poor and downtrodden by supplying necessary foodgrains through the Public Distribution System. The applicant for administrative reasons transferred 38 employees and suspended one employee in November, 1999. Out of 38 employees transferred, 21 employees accepted the transfer and joined duty. Respondents 2 to 19 did not accept the transfer order and started agitating through the first respondent. They were insisting on the cancellation of the order. Since the applicant has acted bona fide and the transfers were effected for administrative reasons, they refused to cancel the order. The respondents started conducting meetings in the premises of the applicant without obtaining permission and were holding meetings inside the compound in front of the main entrance of the applicant's office. Many outsiders were also participating in the said meetings.The respondents resorted to violent activities and prevented the employees from entering and leaving the premises of the applicant through the main gate. They also prevented the people who have business transaction with the applicant from entering and leaving the premises. They also prevented the vehicular movement inside the compound. The respondents from May 1, 2000 have intensified their activities. They held a meeting on May 8, 2000 in front of the main entrance inside the compound. They have erected shamianas and used sound amplifiers. They used abusive language and instigated the members to take violent action against the officers and staff. They have defaced the walls both inside and outside. They have pasted posters, tied banners and written on the walls in red paint. They also started fast unto death. The applicant gave a complaint to the police authorities and they took into custody respondents 2 and 3 who were on fast unto death. For this, respondents 21 and 22 started fast unto death. They were squatting in front of the main entrance. The applicant was forced to close the main gate and the main entrance. The employees of the applicant used the side entrance only. The respondents instead of resorting to legal means provided under law, resorted to wholly unjustified and intimidatory agitation which could result in violence to person and property. They have no right under law to deface the premises of the applicant by pasting and displaying posters, placards and banners all over the place within the office premises. The demonstrations and meetings and shouting of slogans lead to an adverse impact leaving the reputation of the applicant bad in the eyes of the public. The sufferers are the farmers and consumer public especially below the poverty level. The current act