JUDGMENT : Jay Sengupta, J: This is an application praying for direction upon the respondent authorities to take necessary steps to ensure that if any protest takes place, the same is in compliance with law and for a direction to ensure that the protest is done upon maintaining sufficient distance from the currency chest of the bank. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits as follows. The petitioner no.1 entered into an agreement with the proforma respondent for providing manpower at its currency chest at 5, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata for the purpose of sorting cash and the said agreement was renewed from time to time. Subsequently, a dispute arose between the petitioner no.1 and the said workers. The respondent nos.4 and 5 were never employed with the petitioner no.1 at any point. In the garb of trade union activity, the respondent no.4 had been regularly extorting money from the petitioner no.1. Some of the workers and others started agitating in front of the Axix Bank currency chest at the said place. In the meantime, the Axis Bank Limited warned the petitioners that their agreement would be cancelled if they do not stop such workers from agitating near the currency chest. Time has been stipulated for taking necessary action. Representations were made before the police authorities, but no steps were taken either to disperse the agitators or to put any curb on the manner in which the agitation was going on. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.4, 5 and 6 submits as follows. The allegations made in the writ petition are denied. The private respondents have every right to take up their legitimate rights and agitate under the applicable industrial laws. They are agreeable to continue such agitation at some distance away from the currency chest. It is pertinent to mention that the Axis Bank Limited had approached the civil court in this regard by filing Title Suit No.2580 of 2023 before the Learned Judge, Bench VI, City Civil Court at Calcutta. By order dated 21.12.2023, the civil court refused to grant any injunction. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits as follows. The area where the agitation is going on is on Shakespeare Sarani near the Nightingale Hospital. It is a busy thoroughfare. By order dated 21.12.2023, the civil court refused to grant any injunction. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits as follows. The area where the agitation is going on is on Shakespeare Sarani near the Nightingale Hospital. It is a busy thoroughfare. If the agitation is done there even with lesser number of people, that will cause immense hardship to the neighbourhood and the passers-by. The dispute appears to be a private one between the petitioner and the private respondents. They can fairly agitate their grievance in front of the offices of the petitioners either at Sarat Bose Road or at Lake Town, subject to the applicable laws and norms. Presently, the agitation is going on near the currency chest. If something goes wrong, the State would be held responsible. Two cases have already been started against either of the sides. 5. It is not in doubt that the employees would have a right to vent their grievances by legitimate agitation in accordance with law. However, such freedom of expression is subject to reasonable restrictions. 6. The place where the private respondents are seeking to have a demonstration is on a busy thoroughfare. Not only is the present situs of the demonstration in front of the currency chest of the bank, even if they are shifted a little distance away, there are other important institutions nearby including a hospital, schools and other institutions. The street always remains busy with cars and men. Therefore, it will not be proper to allow any agitation near the said place. Let the parties act accordingly. 7. However, the private respondents shall be at liberty to select any other appropriate place for their demonstration including near the offices of the petitioner no.1 at Lake Town or at Sarat Bose Road, subject to necessary approval of the concerned police authorities. 8. No further order need be passed in this regard. 9. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. 10. As affidavits are not called for, allegations in the petition are deemed to have been denied by the respondents. 11. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.