In this thin order, the court did not provide protection to the petitioner. The jurisdiction of the court was not exercised. The petition was disposed off after directing the respondent to personally look into the grievances.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15451 of 2020
Petitioner :- Renu Prajapati Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vikrant Pandey,Santosh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
The present petition has been filed, inter alia, for the following relief:-
"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to provide protection to the petitioner and not to harass the petitioner or any other person regarding the availability of the petitioner."
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that in case the petitioner approaches the respondent no. 2 to ventilate her grievance, the respondent no. 2 shall look into the matter personally and do the needful in accordance with law.
With the above observation, this writ petition is finally disposed off.
Order Date :- 21.10.2020 SR
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Renu Prajapati
State Of U P
Shashi Kant Gupta
Pankaj Bhatia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
