Dismissed

Abdul Gaffar v. Station House Officer & Ors.

Delhi HC14 Mar 2018W.P.(CRL)/534/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought police protection and CCTV installation regarding alleged unauthorized construction by a neighbor in private property. The Court dismissed the petition as misconceived, noting civil remedies exist for construction disputes and CCTV cannot be ordered for private areas.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for police protection and CCTV installation dismissed.

Abdul Gaffar Vs Station House Officer & Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~33

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(CRL) 534/2018

¶4

ABDUL GAFFAR

¶5

..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr. Akash Krishna, Mr. Kunal Israney, Advs. versus

¶6

STATION HOUSE OFFICER & ORS

¶7

	..... Respondent
Represented by:	Ms. Richa Kapoor, ASC with
	SI Bijender Singh PS Chandni
	Mahal.
	Mr. Shahid Ali, Ms. Bushra
	Hasan, Advs. for R-2.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

¶9

O R D E R % 14.03.2018

¶10

By this petition the petitioner seeks directions to the Police to provide necessary protection and to prevent and safeguard the life and property of the petitioner.

¶11

A status report has been filed which reveals that the petitioner and respondent No.2 are living on different floors in property No. 435,438 & 439, Gali Pahar Wali, Chatta Mal Miya, Daryaganj, Delhi. The respondent No.2 took permission to repair the property from the MCD pursuant to which repair is being carried out.

¶12

W.P.(CRL) 534/2018 page 1 of 2

¶13

The grievance of the petitioner is that in the garb of permission for repair work the respondent No.2 is carrying out fresh construction which is not permissible. In case there is a violation of the order of MCD the grievance in this regard cannot be raised in the present petition.

¶14

Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State informs that the petitioner has already taken remedies by filing civil suit. As regards the prayer for installation of CCTV cameras in the property of respondent No.2, no directions can be given by this Court the same being a private property to the extent it encompasses the area in the occupation of the respondent No.2.

¶15

Petition is thus dismissed as misconceived.

¶16

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

¶17

MARCH 14, 2018 ‘ga’

¶18

page 2 of 2

¶19

W.P.(CRL) 534/2018

Abdul Gaffar v. Station House Officer & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Gaffar v. Station House Officer & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Haji Imran Alam Shaikh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Mahesh Alimchandani Vs UOI & Ors.

Ms Shweta Wadhwan & Ors. Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Arjun Vs State

Prayash Thakur Vs Enforcement Directorare

Kuldeep Singh Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Manish Kumar Sinha Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Hari Shankar Bharti Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi

Ram Kaur & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

MD Shakil @ Bhola Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Param Veer Vs State ( NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

Akansha & Anr. Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Himani Jain Vs Pappan

Chander Kanta & Anr. Vs State & Ors.