Petitioner challenged non-compliance of an order dated 30.4.2012 regarding threat perception. Court found police had provided security against threats, rendering the petition infructuous.
Petition disposed of as infructuous due to compliance of security directions.
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.
COCP 1193 of 2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
COCP 1193 of 2013 Date of decision:11.11.2013
Sarup Singh
.. petitioner
vs
Inder Mohan Singh
... respondent
Present Mr. Anant Moudgill, Advocate for Mr. DPS Randhawa, Advocate. Mr. Hari Pal Verma, Addl.A.G.Punjab
M.M.S. BEDI,J.
The petitioner has filed the present contempt petition claiming that order dated 30.4.2012, passed by this court, has not been complied with. Order dated 30.4.2012 reads as follows:-
“ Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Mohinder Pal, Police Station Sadar Ropar, submits that in view of the statement by the petitioners to the effect that they had already filed the civil suit and have got the stay from the Civil Court, in their favour, their application submitted before respondent No.3 was filed.
However, learned counsel for the petitioners denies this fact and submits that the petitioners had been receiving threats from the private respondents because of which they were compelled to approach respondent No.3 and the petitioners never requested respondent No.3 to file their application in view of the stay order granted by the learned Civil Court. Be that as it may, the instant petition is ordered to be disposed of with a direction to Senior Superintendent of Police, Roparrespondent No.3 to look into the threat perception raised by the petitioners vide their representation dated 16.3.2010 (Annexure P-4) and pass appropriate order, as warranted by
Mann Tapindar Singh 2013.11.15 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
COCP 1193 of 2013
2
law, so as to ensure that no untoward incident takes place between the parties.
In view of the observations made above, the instant petition stands disposed of.”
On notice having been issued to the respondents, a copy of the order passed by S.S.P. Rupnagar on 1.10.2013 , has been placed on record indicating that one Head Constable and another Constable have been deputed as gunmen with the petitioner. It has also been informed that police officials have been provided in the building in Village Solkhian, Tehsil and District Ropar, the place where the petitioner resides. DSP Harbir Singh Atwal is present in the court. He has informed that taking into consideration the threat perception to the petitioner, necessary action for security of the petitioner has been taken in consonance with the directions of the High Court.
In view of the said circumstances, this petition is disposed of as having rendered infructuous, expecting that the security provided to the petitioner will not be withdrawn without informing the petitioner and will be reviewed from time to time. The right of the petitioner will not be prejudiced to avail the legal remedy, available to him, in case warranted by the situation from time to time.
November 11 ,2013 ( M.M.S. BEDI ) TSM JUDGE
Mann Tapindar Singh 2013.11.15 14:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
Sarup Singh
Inder Mohan Singh
M. M. S. Bedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
