Kals Breweries Private Limited, vs The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by The Superintendent of Police, Pudukottai

Court
Madras High Court

CRL OP(MD) No. 24877 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
CRL OP(MD) No. 24877 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011522042026}
Kals Breweries Private Limited,
Represented by its Authorised Signatory,
Mr. Ponmutnuvelappan,
Having its brewery at S.No.345, Kunnnathur Village,
Viralimalai Taluk,Pudukottai District - 621316.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by The
Superintendent of Police, Pudukottai
Office of Superintendent of Police,
Pudukottai District.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Keeranur
Sub Division, Pudukottai District.
3. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police,
Mathur Police Station,
Pudukottai District.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: This Petition filed under section Petition u/s 528 of BNSS C-
42D. To issue a direction to the Respondents to provide proper police
protection to the petitioners company on 26.10.2026 or at any future date,
on basis of the representation dated 14.10.2026.
For Petitioner(s) :Mr.Arul Vadivel @ Sekar
for M/s.Arulvadivel Associates
For Respondent(s) :MR.Arun
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
__________
Page  1  of  9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:43:34 am )

CRL OP(MD) No. 24877 of 2026
ORDER
The present petition has been filed seeking a direction to
the r espondents to provide proper police protection to the petitioner’s
company on 26.10.2026 or at any future date, on basis of the
representation dated 14.10.2026.
2.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner is engaged in the manufacture
of beer and it is supplying to the Tamil Nadu State Marketing
Corporation Limited in accordance with its requirements.
According to him, the brewery is equipped with advanced
automated manufacturing systems and has been functioning
under the applicable statutory and regulatory framework.
3. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that more
than 500 persons are employed in the said premises and
unidentified persons have raised environmental allegations as
against the brewery and they are proposing to conduct an
agitation in front of the petitioner's factory on 26.10.2026. He
__________
Page  2  of  9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:43:34 am )

CRL OP(MD) No. 24877 of 2026
further pointed out that a notice concerning the proposed
agitation has come to the petitioner's knowledge.
4.The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the
proposed agitation in front of the factory premises has given
rise to reasonable apprehension that the normal functioning
of the brewery may be disrupted and the movement of the
employees, vehicles, raw materials and finished products are
likely to be obstructed.
5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner further submits that the proposed agitation would
adversely affect the safety of the employees and the
company's ability to carry on its lawful business. The learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that any
permission granted by the respondent officials to conduct any
agitation very closer to the factory premises is likely to cause
industrial accident in case of any untoward incident.
__________
Page  3  of  9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:43:34 am )

CRL OP(MD) No. 24877 of 2026
6. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the
petitioner is having two units, one at Kunnathur Village and
another at Kallakottai Village in Pudukottai District. According
to him, the proposed agitation is before both the units and
therefore he seeks adequate police protection to the running
of the factory, safety of the employees and the ingress and
egress of the employees.
7. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side)
appearing for the respondents submitted that the agitation
has got concluded on 26.10.2026 and as on today, no
application is pending seeking permission to conduct any
agitation in front of the petitioner’s premises.
8.As per the averments in the petition the company is
functioning after obtaining clearance from all the statutory
__________
Page  4  of  9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:43:34 am )

CRL OP(MD) No. 24877 of 2026
authorities and therefore they are entitled to carry on their
lawful activities and conduct the business. In case if any
villagers have got any objection whatsoever, it is always open
to them to express their opinion in a democratic manner. It is
made clear that the protest cannot be prevented. However, the
safety and functioning of the factory has to be taken into
consideration.
On a similar occasion, this Court, in the order dated 16.06.2022
9.
in WP.No. 4962 of 2022, at paragraph Nos.4 and 5 held as follows:
‘4.It is to be noted that the employees who are agitated
for their rights or descends to the decision of the
Management cannot prevent other workmen and they have
no right to cause damage to the property. If they want to
show their protest in a democratic way, they can do it after
obtaining permission from the concerned jurisdictional
police and fix a place that was ear marked for such
democratic protest. One cannot take the law and order in
their own hands to prevent the production / business of
others under the pretext of their right.
5.Hence this Court is of the view that whenever there is
any unlawful activities by the section of the employees
preventing other workmen of the petitioner's factory, it is the
duty of the police to ensure that the property of the
__________
Page  5  of  9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:43:34 am )

CRL OP(MD) No. 24877 of 2026
petitioner's factory is not damaged and to ensure that the
Petitioner's industry / premises runs peacefully with its staff
and willing employees and suitably prevent the agitating
members, men, agents, supporters or representatives from
illegally assembling or gathering inside the factory premises
and also to ensure that the ingress and egress into the
Petitioners factory of men and material including movement
of vehicles as per law’.
10. In such view of the matter, it is made clear in case if
any request emanates from any one of the villagers for
conducting any protest, the same shall be kept away from the
petitioner's premises.
11. In view of the above, this court is inclined to pass the
following order:
a) The petitioner is directed to make appropriate
application before the first respondent seeking police
protection for his premises at Kunnathur Village and at
Kallakottai Village in Pudukottai District on payment of
necessary charges as per the prevailing Rules.
__________
Page  6  of  9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:43:34 am )

CRL OP(MD) No. 24877 of 2026
b) On receipt of such an application and on payment of
such charges, the first respondent is directed to provide
adequate police protection.
c) any request for agitation or protest as against the two
units of the petitioner, if received, it is open to the
respondents herein to give necessary permission, keeping the
protest 500 metres away from the petitioner’s respective
premises.
12. With the above directions, this petition is disposed of.
No costs.

04-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
CM
__________
Page  7  of  9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:43:34 am )

CRL OP(MD) No. 24877 of 2026
To
1. The Superintendent of Police, Pudukottai
Office of Superintendent of Police
Pudukottai District
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Keeranur Sub Division
Pudukottai District
3. Inspector Of Police, Mathur
Police Station
Pudukottai District
4. The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Madurai
__________
Page  8  of  9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:43:34 am )

CRL OP(MD) No. 24877 of 2026
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
CM
CRL OP(MD) No. 24877 of 2026
04-11-2026
__________
Page  9  of  9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 11:43:34 am )