Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 21213
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Y. Lakshmana Rao, J
THE INDIAN CEMENT LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 10181/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S Dushyanth Reddy
For the Respondents: GP FOR HOME
The state authorities are obligated to provide effective police protection to industrial premises to ensure the free movement of personnel and materials and maintain law and order to prevent obstructions to business operations.
Headnote:The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent authorities to provide adequate and effective police protection to its factory located at Chillamakuru, Yerraguntia Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, to ensure smooth operations without obstruction. The respondent authorities contended that sufficient preventive measures and bandobast had already been deployed and that the situation was under control, denying allegations of political influence or failure to act. The primary issue was whether the respondent police were providing sufficient protection to prevent law and order problems and obstructions at the factory premises. The court observed the submissions of the Assistant Government Pleader and the petitioner's reliance on previous judicial directions for factory protection, reasoning that the state must ensure the free ingress and egress of men and materials to allow the factory to restart its operations. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
ORDER
The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-
“…to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction directing the 3rd Respondent to provide immediate adequate and effective police protection to the Petitioners factory by name M/s India cements Ltd located at Chillamakuru Yerraguntia Mandal YSR Kadapa District Andhra Pradesh to run the factory smoothly without any obstruction The Petitioner further prays that the 3rd respondent be directed to take all necessary and effective preventive measures to maintain law and order in and around the factory premises and pass….”
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader.
Sri S. Dushyanth Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that respondent No.3 is not providing adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner’s factory for conducting its affairs smoothly without any obstruction.
Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that several preventive measures have been taken with respect to the law and order situation at the petitioner’s factory. Bandobast was also arranged by deploying police personnel.
The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits as under:
1. On 14.04.2026 and 15.04.2026, bandobust was arranged by deploying the Circle Inspector, Sub-Inspectors, Armed Reserve personnel, and local police staff.
2. On 15.04.2026 at about 07:30 AM, when certain persons attempted to trespass through the eastern side compound wall, the police immediately intervened and brought the situation under control.
3. The allegations made by the petitioner company are false. baseless, and contrary to the actual facts.
4. Upon receipt of information regarding a possible breach of law and order at India Cements Limited, Chilamakuru, the police immediately initiated necessary action without delay.
5. Adequate police bandobust was arranged at the factory main gate, mines area, eastern compound wall side, and labour colony.
6. Continuous patrolling, picketing, and surveillance were carried out in Chilamakuru village and surrounding areas.
7. The situation was continuously monitored through field officers and intelligence inputs.
8. The police acted lawfully, Impartially, and without bias; the allegation of acting under political influence is strongly denied.
9. No incident involving violence, injuries, or damage to property occurred due to effective police intervention, which establishes that proper bandobust was maintained.
10. The allegation that the police failed to act, as stated by the petitioner, is wholly incorrect; every information received was promptly acted upon.
11 The police response was proportionate to the prevailing situation.
12 The duty of the police is confined to maintaining law and order. regulation of industrial operations does not fall within the domain of the police
13 The petitioner has suppressed the true facts and has exaggerated the situation in the present writ petition.
14 The situation is presently under control and adequate police bandobust is being continued.
15. The police will continue to take necessary steps to maintain law and order in future as well.
16. Till as on today respondent 5 along with 2 Sis and staff continuously monitoring the police bundobusth at the above said factory by serving 2 Police Pickets with sufficient staff.
The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that, as of now, there is no major law and order problem or any other issue at the premises of the petitioner’s factory.
The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.14515 of 2025 , dated 19.06.2025, wherein, by placing reliance on the judgments of the High Courts of Kerala and Madras, a direction was issued to the respondent police therein to provide necess
