JUDGMENT : Narendra Kumar Vyas, J. 1. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and involved in manufacturing of sponge iron at Raipur and Durg. The petitioner company has been granted mining lease of iron for its captive issue on 05.01.2007 for 50 years under the relevant provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and the rules made therein. The mining lease was granted on 07.01.2017. Learned Senior counsel Mr. Ratan Singh assisted by Mr. Harshmander Rastogi would submit that the company’s plants situated at Raipur and Durg are totally dependent for raw materials iron ore from the said mines. 2. It has been further contended that the Collector, District- North Bastar vide its letter dated 01.02.2018 has granted approval to the petitioner apprising to enter and initiate mining in the said mines, which has been granted on 07.01.2017 for 50 years. In pursuance of approval granted by the Collector, the petitioner company started its mining work from 25.10.2018 through its worker and contract labour. Respondent No. 7 illegally started to interfere with the operation and working of the mines and also started provoking the workers of respondent No.6. Respondent No. 7 started threatening and making illegal demands and have also started blocking the entrance to the mining lease area. On 07.05.2023, they are also not allowing the workers to enter into the mine and threatened not to start mining operation without their consent and permission and again they have continued with the same illegal activity. The petitioner company has lodged FIR on 08.05.2023 under Section 147/294/323 and 506 of IPC before Police Station- Lohtaar, District Kanker. The respondent No. 6 has also pursuaded the matter with the local administration, but no action has been taken by the local administration, therefore, the petitioner has submitted application on 15.05.2023 to respondent No. 3 to take appropriate steps against the illegal activities carried out by the respondent No.7. Despite pursuation, no action has been taken by respondent No. 3 & 4. On above factual matrix, the petitioner has prayed for following relief:- “10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to ensure the smooth uninterrupted legal operations of the mines of the petitioner during the tenure of the lease deed period. 10.2. Despite pursuation, no action has been taken by respondent No. 3 & 4. On above factual matrix, the petitioner has prayed for following relief:- “10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to ensure the smooth uninterrupted legal operations of the mines of the petitioner during the tenure of the lease deed period. 10.2. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to kindly consider the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P/13 and Annexure P/14) and to take appropriate steps in order to maintain law and order in the mines of the petitioner in addition to ensuring the security of the mines’ labours. 10.3. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to take appropriate steps in order to maintain law and order in the mines of the petitioner in addition to ensuring the security of the mines’ labours.” 3. On above factual matrix, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that a direction be issued to local administration to grant protection to them to run their industry smoothly. He would further submit that to run a business is also a fundamental right of the citizen of this country, therefore, they also need protection from this Court. 4. On the other hand, Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for respondents No.1 to 5/State would submit that the State is ready to provide protection if they start their mining activities immediately. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would further submit that they are ready to start their mining operation today itself if protection is granted to them. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction. 6. The issue with regard to grant of police protection to run the industry has come up for consideration before various High Courts of the country. Some of the judgments which are relevant for adjudication of the present case are being extracted below:- (i) Hon’ble Kerala High Court in M. Raghunathan Vs. Dy. Supdt. of Police & others reported in 1987 LAB I.C. 1384 has held at paragraph 8 & 9 as under:- “8. There can be no serious controversy on the point that even if there is a labour dispute the striking workers have no right to cause any unlawful obstruction. Dy. Supdt. of Police & others reported in 1987 LAB I.C. 1384 has held at paragraph 8 & 9 as under:- “8. There can be no serious controversy on the point that even if there is a labour dispute the striking workers have no right to cause any unlawful obstruction. If they do it, it will still be a crime. The police has to prevent it. It is their prime obligation. The complaint of the petitioner is that the police is failing in discharging this important obligation, in law. I should hasten to say that respondents 1 to 3, through their counsel, stoutly denied it. 9. In these circumstances, I think the police should give assistance to the petitioner for free ingress and egress to his property without any obstruction by any person whatsoever. Further, the petitioner should be given assistance to employ his own willing workers- not strangers who were not in his service. I would make it clear that the petitioner can employ only his two permanent tapping workers for the tapping work. Respondents 3 to 5 agree that the petitioner's two permanent workers are P. Nelson and Majeed. The petitioner should be given adequate protection for his peaceful residence in his building and for taking the yield and the usufructs from the property. Since there is a serious labour dispute, particularly in regard to the 1 acre, I hold that till the labour dispute is settled, the petitioner should not employe any person for tapping the trees in that separate plaot of 1 acre.” (ii) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) pvt. Ltd. Vs. T.M. Nagarajan & others reported in 1988 LAB I.C. 1067 has held at paragraph 20 as under:- “I am of the view that some directions by means of an order coupled with the undertaking given by the defendants through counsel Mrs. S. Pappu and the undertaking given in the affidavit of defendant No. 7 with which I am satisfied, I accept undertaking and same shall meet the ends of justice. I hope that defendants shall abide by their undertaking. This will help in creating the harmony. Accordingly, defendants shall be bound by their undertaking to the following effect : Defendants shall not physically prevent the ingress or egress of any willing worker to and from the Express building situate at Bahadur Shah Zafer Marg. I hope that defendants shall abide by their undertaking. This will help in creating the harmony. Accordingly, defendants shall be bound by their undertaking to the following effect : Defendants shall not physically prevent the ingress or egress of any willing worker to and from the Express building situate at Bahadur Shah Zafer Marg. Defendants shall not go in the service lane, i.e., the lane between the side of the Express building and the premises of Milap and also not go or move towards the other side and the back of the Express building and also not go towards the side gates of the Express building. Defendants will bold peaceful picketing or stage dharna in the middle of the railing and beyond the railing towards road, ie., between the foot-step of the staircase (leading to main entrance) and the corner of the Express building towards service lane and may fix tent there. Defendants will not hold any picketing demonstration or stage dharna within 15 metres from the footstep of the staircase (leading to main entrance). The undertaking given by defendants shall continue till the disposal of the suit.” (iii) Hon’ble Kerala High Court in Joy Mathew Vs. Superintendent of Police, Rural, Alwaye and others reported in 1990 LAB I.C. 517 has held at paragraph 7 as under:- “7……..In view of what has been stated above, I direct respondents 1 to 3 to afford sufficient effective police protection to the petitioner to carry on the business in his establishment without any interference from 4th respondent or any other labour union or its followers. If the 4th respondent or other unions carry on the agitation with the help of ladies, respondents 1 to 3 should remove the obstruction so caused with the help of women police constables. They cannot and should not shirk from their legal duties and responsibilities under the cover that the dispute is purely a labour dispute. ” (iv) Hon’ble Kerala High Court in Indo Scottish Brand Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Police, Ernakulam & others reported in 1996 LAB I.C. 1329 has held at paragraph 8 as under:- “8. They cannot and should not shirk from their legal duties and responsibilities under the cover that the dispute is purely a labour dispute. ” (iv) Hon’ble Kerala High Court in Indo Scottish Brand Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Police, Ernakulam & others reported in 1996 LAB I.C. 1329 has held at paragraph 8 as under:- “8. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I allow this original petition and direct respondents 1 to 4 to afford adequate police protection to the petitioner and its willing workmen to carry on its normal activities including loading and unloading by engaging its own workmen without any obstruction from respondents 5 and 6 unions or their members at the petitioner’s cost.” (v) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Indira Gandhi National Open University Vs. M/s Spick & Span Facilities Management Pvt. Ltd. & others, reported in 2009 LLR 627 has held at paragraph 6 as under:- “6. In view of what has been noticed above, particularly, the terms of the agreement entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No.2, the workers employed by defendant No.2 cannot be held to be the employees of the plaintiff and consequently, they cannot claim or seek any benefit from the plaintiff. The agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No.2 having come to an end, the persons employed by defendant No.2 ceased to have any connection whatsoever with the plaintiff. Accordingly, I hold that the agitation resorted to by the defendants was uncalled for, illegal and without any justification. Hence, I pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendants No.3 to 6 from organizing or leading any mob in picketing, gheraoing, demonstrating, putting lock on gate and/or putting up tent, shamiana, loud speakers, mike etc. in front of the main entrance of the Maidan Garhi Campus, New Delhi of the plaintiff- university. Decree-sheet be drawn.” 7. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the State that if the petitioner immediately starts its mining operation, they are ready to provide police protection immediately. As such, this Court in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can direct the administration to provide police protection, as such, respondent No.4/Superintendent of Police is directed to provide police protection to the petitioner from today itself to start its mining operation. As such, this Court in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can direct the administration to provide police protection, as such, respondent No.4/Superintendent of Police is directed to provide police protection to the petitioner from today itself to start its mining operation. It is also directed that the Collector and Superintendent of Police will monitor the situation and will make sincere efforts to maintain the law and order situation in the mining area of the petitioner company. It is also directed that respondents No. 3 & 4 will ensure that respondent No. 7 will not take the law in their hands and do not involve in any act of violence, assaulting or gheraoing or giving threat of assault to any employee of the petitioner company or their contract labours. 8. With the aforesaid observations & directions, the present writ petition is disposed off.