Allowed

Som Dutt v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Aug 2023CRWP/8154/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed a conscience-keeping petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner sought protection from private respondents. The Court directed the Superintendent of Police to decide a specific representation within 15 days and provide necessary protection, while clarifying that no adjudication on merits was made.

What did the court decide?

Direction to decide representation dated 25.07.2023 within 15 days; provision of protection after analyzing ground reality.

Som Dutt Vs State of Haryana and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

CRWP No. 8154 of 2023

¶2

2023:PHHC:107827

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

116 CRWP No. 8154 of 2023 Date of Decision: 21.08.2023

Som Du�

...Pe��oner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

¶10

…Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶12

Present: Mr. G.S. Salana, Advocate for the pe��oner.

¶13

Mr. Manish Bansal, Sr. D.A.G, Haryana.

¶14

****

¶15

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

¶16

The present pe��on has been filed under Ar�cle 226/227 of the Cons�tu�on of India with a prayer to issue direc�ons to respondents No. 1 to 3 for the protec�on of life and liberty to the pe��oner at the hands of respondents No. 4 and 5 as well as unnecessary harassment at the instance of respondents No. 6 to 8.

¶17

No�ces are served upon the official respondents through the State's counsel. State counsel on instruc�ons submits that there is nothing to fear from the official respondents because they are duty bound to obey the law and not to trouble the people. Given the nature of the order that this Court proposes to pass, neither the response of official respondents nor the issuance of no�ces to the private respondents is required.

¶18

Counsel for the pe��oner submits that he would be sa�sfied in case direc�ons may be issued to respondent No. 2 to decide the representa�on dated 25.07.2023 (Annexure P-1) in a �me bound manner.

¶19

Let the representa�on dated 25.07.2023 (Annexure P-1) be decided by the concerned Superintendent of Police, within 15 days, either himself/herself or by authorizing and delega�ng it to any officer holding IPS cadre. It is clarified that such order must be a reasoned order, and the same be communicated to the counsel as well as representa�onists without delay. In case of any threat to his life, pe��oner is at liberty to approach the concerned Senior Superintendent of Police, who shall provide him protec�on a�er analyzing ground reality on day to day basis.

¶20

JYOTI 2023.08.22 13:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶21

¶22

CRWP No. 8154 of 2023

¶23

¶24

2023:PHHC:107827

¶25

Liberty reserved to the pe��oners to file fresh pe��on or to take other legal

¶26

remedies in accordance with the law.

¶27

It is clarified that there is no adjudica�on on merits. It is further clarified that this

¶28

order shall not come in the way if the interroga�on of the pe��oners is required in any cognizable case.

¶29

It is further clarified that counsel for the pe��oner shall provide his email i.d with

¶30

the State counsel during the course of the day.

¶31

There would be no need for a cer�fied copy of this order, and any Advocate for the Pe��oner and State can download this order and other relevant par�culars from the official web page of this court and a�est it to be a true copy. The concerned officer can also verify its authen�city and may download and use the downloaded copy for immediate use.

¶32

Pe��on is allowed to the extent men�oned above . All pending applica�ons, if any, stand disposed.

¶33

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 21.08.2023 Jyo�-II Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No.

¶34

JYOTI 2023.08.22 13:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶35

Som Dutt v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Som Dutt v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others

Bakhshish Singh Vs State of Ut Chanidgarh and Ors.

Ginia Alias Gyani Ram Vs State of Haryana

Tarsem Singh Alias Sema Vs State of Punjab and Others

Mohit Vs State of Haryana and Another

Jaswinder Singh @ Baggar Vs State of Punjab