Disposed

Parmeet Singh Chahal v. Central Reserve Police Force & Ors.

Delhi HC5 Nov 2024W.P.(C)/15245/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single bench order disposing of a writ petition concerning a property dispute involving the deployment of CRPF personnel. Court deemed maintainability doubtful but directed respondents to review a specific representation.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondent No. 2 to review the petitioner's grievance regarding personnel deployment and communicate the decision.

Parmeet Singh Chahal Vs Central Reserve Police Force & Ors. — Delhi HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

$~52

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 15245/2024 PARMEET SINGH CHAHAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Abhijat, Mr. Vishal Verma and Mr. Aditya Chauhan, Advs.

¶3

versus

¶4

CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE & ORS.

¶5

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari, Sr. Panel Counsel with Mr. Ankur Yadav, G.P. and Ms. Samiksha, Adv. for R-1 & 2/UOI. Mr. Ajay Pal, AC Law/CRPF. Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Pandey, Adv. for R-3 & 4.

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR

¶7

¶8

O R D E R 05.11.2024

¶9

This petition has been filed by the petitioner contending that there was a property transaction between him and the wife of respondent No. 4 (incorrectly described in the petition as respondent No.3). The petitioner claims that when the agreement fell through, possession of the property was taken back by him. However, later the respondent No. 4 forcibly occupied the property and stationed his personnel there.

¶10

The above contentions are strongly refuted by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents, including the respondent No. 4.

¶11

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/11/2024 at 11:33:22

¶12

Prima facie , we are of the opinion that the present petition, insofar as it involves disputed questions of fact and concerns a private/civil transaction between the petitioner and the wife of respondent No. 4, may not be maintainable.

¶13

At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is confining his prayer to consideration of his representation dated 23.10.2024 (Annexure P-2) by the Competent Authority of the respondents.

¶14

Considering the limited prayer now made, we direct the respondent No. 2 to review the petitioner’s grievance regarding the deployment of personnel at his property and communicate its decision to him.

¶15

We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s case or on the maintainability of the present petition.

¶16

With the above observations and the directions, the petition is disposed of.

¶17

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

¶18

SHALINDER KAUR, J

¶19

NOVEMBER 5, 2024 akc/B/DG

¶20

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶21

Parmeet Singh Chahal v. Central Reserve Police Force & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parmeet Singh Chahal v. Central Reserve Police Force & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd Arshad Vs Bses Yamuna Power Limited

Lal Chand Chaprana Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Vijay Kumar and Ors. Vs Sashastra Seema Bal and Anr.

Mahender Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S Jai Shri Banke Bihari Traders Vs Union of India & Ors.

Dr Robin Malik & Anr. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi

Sanjay Gambhir Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Rachna Paul Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Vijay Kumar and Ors. Vs Sashastra Seema Bal and Anr.

Mahender Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Anuj Singh Vs Union of India & Anr.

Maj Gen Jitendra Kumar Shukla Vsm Vs Union of India & Ors.

Wing Commander Siddarth Pradhan (29471) Vs Union of India and Ors.

Rahul Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.