Manmohan Sarin ( 1 ) THIS order will dispose of two interim applications, viz. IA 4311/99 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and IA 4977/99 filed by the defendants under Order XXXIX, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ( 2 ) PLAINTIFF Asian Hotels Limited have instituted the present suit for permanent injunction, seeking to restrain the defendants from holding any demonstration, Dharna, etc. within a radius of 500 meters from the boundary wall of Hotel Hyatt Regency. Defendant No. I is the Asian Hotels Employees Union and defendants 2 to 16 are the office bearers of defendant No. I and employees of the plaintiff. ( 3 ) THE suit was instituted on 28. 4. 1999 and was accompanied by IA 4311 /99. Vide an ex parte order dated 29. 4. 1999 the defendants were restrained from holding any demonstrations, Dharnas within a radius of 250 meters from the boundary wall of Hotel Hyatt Regency. Defendants subsequently filed IA 4977/99 for vacating the ex parte order. ( 4 ) PLEADINGS in the suit and the interim applications are complete. Counsel for the parties have been heard on the applications. The case of the plaintiff is as under : (I) Plaintiff is the owner and managers the five star Deluxe Hotel Hyatt Regency, which is frequented by foreign dignitaries. State guests and diplomats, amongst others. (ii) Plaintiff contends that two of the office bearers of defendant No. I, viz. Chander Bahadur, defendant No. 4; and Yashwant Kurnar were facing serious charges of misconduct. The management, after giving due opportunity, conducted an enquiry and found their explanation unsatisfactory. The said two employees have been dismissed while enquiry proceedings are pending against three others, who are under suspension. The dismissed and suspended employees are being aided and abetted by outsiders and have been instigating the employees to strike work and disrupt the functioning of the hotel. The defendants, it is claimed, have been attempting to paralyse the operations of the hotel and, in fact, one of the employees of the plaintiff, was severely beaten, details of which are given in the replication. It is, in these circumstances, that plaintiff lodged reports with the police. ( 5 ) THE defendants, on the other hand, claimed that plaintiffs have unleashed repression after the registration of their trade union. It is, in these circumstances, that plaintiff lodged reports with the police. ( 5 ) THE defendants, on the other hand, claimed that plaintiffs have unleashed repression after the registration of their trade union. The attempt is to curb and scuttle the legitimate trade union activity. Management has already suspended 16 employees and dismissed two employees. It is submitted that till date, even before the filing of the suit or thereafter, no demonstration- has been organised. There is no obstruction whatsoever to the egress and ingress and that employees are conscious of their responsibilities. It is submitted that the ex parte injunction, prohibiting holding of demonstrations within a distance of 250 meters is virtually amounting to a ban on holding of demonstrations and scuttling the trade union activity. It is urged that this order ought to be vacated so that employees can demonstrate peacefully outside the hotel. ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the plaintiff argued that defendants had preferred FAO (OS) 152/99 aginst the order dated 29. 4. 1999, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that the appropriate remedy was to move the Single Judge under Order XXXIX, Rule 4, CPC, and simply because a long date was given, the same could not be a ground for preferring an appeal. Against the order of the Division Bench, the defendants preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, which was also dismissed. He urged that the grounds taken in the Special Leave Petition were the same which are now sought to be urged and, accordingly, the interim order deserved to be confirmed and defendants prayer for vacation rejected. In my view, the dismissal of the appeal against the ex parte order by the Division Bench and the Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court would not come in the way of disposal of these applications on merit. ( 7 ) THE question to be considered is whether the ex parte order deserves to be made absolute or it needs to be modified. There can be no dispute that running of Five Star Deluxe Hotel requires a high degree of efficiency. In the hospitality industry, it is only after asustained effort that a hotel builds up its image. ( 7 ) THE question to be considered is whether the ex parte order deserves to be made absolute or it needs to be modified. There can be no dispute that running of Five Star Deluxe Hotel requires a high degree of efficiency. In the hospitality industry, it is only after asustained effort that a hotel builds up its image. The hotel industry presently is highly competitive and each hotel has to strive for providing complete and maximum satisfaction of the customers to ensure their confort and make their stay pleasant. Undoubtedly, any unsavory incident or obstruction in the egress and ingress or demonstration which has the potential of becoming violent or a nuisance could scare away the customers and mar the image of the hotel. ( 8 ) LEARNED Counsel for the plaintiff, in support of his submission, has relied on a decision of East India Hotels v. Oberoi Inter Continental Employees Union, 1994 LLR 920, Wherein employees were restrained from staging any demonstration within 300 meters of the boundary of the hotel. Learned Counsel argued that the distance, as directed in the ex parte order of 250 meters, was reasonable inasmuch as a person having normal vision of 6 by 6 could easily see upto 500 meters. As such, the distance of 250 meters was reasonable, keeping in mind the fact that it was a hotel and not a factory, where even a lesser distance, in certain circumstances, could be workable. Reference was also invited to an ex parte order in the case of Apollo Hospital where the distance fixed was more than 300 meters. ( 9 ) PLAINTIFFS have the fundamental right to carry on their business activity without obstruction and hindrance by violent demonstrations. At the same time, defendants cannot be denied the freedom to ventilate their grievances. A balance has to be struck in the exercise of legitimate trade union activity and preventing any obstruction in the right to carry on business. Defendants ought not to be prevented from a peaceful mechanism to display group feelings towards a cause and for redressal of their grievances. Towards this end, they have a right to peacefully demonstrate and to have their presence felt. Such presence may even act as a catalyst and is conducive in bringing the parties to the negotiating table, leading to a settlement of disputes. Towards this end, they have a right to peacefully demonstrate and to have their presence felt. Such presence may even act as a catalyst and is conducive in bringing the parties to the negotiating table, leading to a settlement of disputes. ( 10 ) THERE cannot be a strait jacket formula for fixing the distance within which the agitating employees should be restrained from demonstrating. The distance would depend upon a variety of factors, such as the topography of the area, the approach and exit from the building, the proximity and existence of other establishments, the nature of the industry, etc. and finally the individual facts and circumstances of the case. ( 11 ) AS far as the facts of the present case are concerned, plaintiffs have produced on record the site plan of the hotel. From a perusal of the site plan filed, it is seen that the hotel is surrounded on the one side by Government offices and on the other by a fire station and other Government establishments. The entrance to the hotel banquet hall is from the ring road. In case the defendants are required not to demonstrate within a distance of 250 meters, as ordered, it would mean that they would perforce be taken in front of the other Government offices on the two sides, which may invite objections and cause disturbance to them. On the northern side is the ring road and, thereafter, there is a side lane, which is followed by the DDA park, with the Palika Bhawan on the other side. ( 12 ) CONSIDERING the topography of the area, as placed on record and the existence of other buildings and the facts of the present case, I am of the view that the appropriate distance with which the defendants be restrained from holding the demonstration is 80 meters. This would take the defendants to either the side lane, where road construction is said to be under-way or in front of the two parks. This would be a reasonable distance from where defendants presence can be felt, without causing any obstruction to the ingress or egress or nuisance or embarrassment to the customers and visitors to the hotel. ( 13 ) ACCORDINGLY, order dated 29. 4. 1999 is modified to the extent that defendants are restrained from staging any demonstration or Dharna within 80 meters of the boundary of Hotel Hyatt Regency. ( 13 ) ACCORDINGLY, order dated 29. 4. 1999 is modified to the extent that defendants are restrained from staging any demonstration or Dharna within 80 meters of the boundary of Hotel Hyatt Regency. A copy of the order be sent to the S. H. O. of the concerned police station to ensure compliance of this order. las 4311/99 and 4977/99 stand disposed in the above terms. IAs disposed of. .