Remanded

Chandi Ram Gupta v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Aug 2010CWP/14761/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a Municipal Councilor, sought security after facing threats. The Court refused to directly grant security and instead directed the respondent authority to assess the threat perception and take appropriate action within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no. 2 to assess threat perception and make appropriate security arrangements within four weeks.

Chandi Ram Gupta Vs State of Haryana & Ors. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP. No. 14761 of 2010 Date of Decision: 19.8.2010.

Chandi Ram Gupta

--Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

¶7

--Respondents

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI.

¶9

Present:Mr. R.M. Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

¶11

PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL)

¶12

Notice of motion.

¶13

Mr. R.S. Kundu, Addl. A.G., Haryana has been asked to accept notice on behalf of respondents.

¶14

Keeping in view the nature of relief claimed and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being disposed of at the motion stage itself.

¶15

The case of the petitioner is that he was earlier elected as Municipal Councilor from Ward No.15 and his wife was also elected as Municipal Councilor from Ward No.13, Palwal. For the next election i.e in the year 2010 wife of the petitioner has been elected as Municipal Councilor from Ward No.15, whereas the petitioner has not contested the election. It is alleged that one Ajay Gujjar, who is a notorious gangster having number of cases against him threatened the petitioner on his mobile and demanded an amount of Rs.50 lacs as ransom from him. Petitioner lodged FIR No.261 dated 13.7.2010 with the Police Station Camp Palwal. Keeping in view the said threat perception, petitioner was provided security, which has now been withdrawn. Petitioner made representations to various authorities including

¶16

CWP. No. 14761 of 2010

¶17

-2-

¶18

the Chief Minister of the State. Receiving no response, present writ petition has been filed in this Court for a direction to restore the security of the petitioner.

¶19

Whether a person needs any protection/security is a question to be assessed and determined by the police agency. It is not for the Court to issue directions without there being any assessment by competent authority.

¶20

In this view of the matter, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no.2 to assess the threat perception to the petitioner and if, there is real threat perception, the appropriate security arrangements may be made in accordance with rules/law. Let the needful be done within a period of four weeks.

¶21

(PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE

¶22

19.8.2010. lucky

Chandi Ram Gupta v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandi Ram Gupta v. State of Haryana & 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

Parkasho Devi Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Radhey Shyam Vs H.P.G.C.L & Ors.

Om Parkash and Ors. Vs M.D., D.H.B.V.N. Ltd. and Ors.

Harvinder Kaur Vs HUDA and Ors.

Devki Sharma Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Ramesh Chand Vs State of Haryana and Ors.