Petitioner sought a writ to quash refusal of police protection for boundary wall construction. Court directed police to expediently deal with any pending or new complaints filed by the petitioner.
Direction to police to inform complainant of pending complaints and deal with new complaints expeditiously under the law.
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.
$~37
RAM AVTAR SHARMA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.K. Saini, Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advs.
versus
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC for the State, with W/SI N. Tiamenla, PS Geeta Colony Mr. R.K. Bhardwaj, Adv. for R-4
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
The present petitioner has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:
“ a) A Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the case for perusal;
b) Writ of Certiorari quashing the refusal on part of the respondents to provide police aid/protection to the petitioner for construction of a boundary wall on his plot of land for protection of his possession on account of threat of encroachment, being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unwarranted and unjust action and in violation of their public duty and responsibility to maintain law and order.
c) A Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to provide adequate police aid /protection to the petitioner for construction of a boundary wall on his plot of land bearing
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 04/07/2025 at 04:21:53
Plot No. 1/1, Khasra No. 22/24/2, Gali No. 4, Rani Garden, Geeta Colony, Delhi;
d) A writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the costs of this petition to the petitioner.
e) Any other writ, order or direction, which may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”
At the outset, learned ASC for the State submits that if any complaint is filed by the petitioner, the same shall be dealt with, expeditiously and without any delay in accordance with law.
In view of the submissions made, the present petition is disposed of with the direction that the complainant be informed about his pending complaints and if any new complaint be made, the same be dealt with law as expeditiously without any fail.
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J
SEPTEMBER 23, 2024/AR/KR..
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 04/07/2025 at 04:21:53
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of certiorari to quash the police refusal to provide protection for boundary wall construction.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ram Avtar Sharma
Commissioner of Police & Ors.
Dinesh Kumar Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
A constitutional writ petition in a criminal context, most commonly habeas corpus or a challenge to an FIR or detention order.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
