Disposed¶20

Harmohinder Singh @ Lucky v. Union of India and Other

Punjab & Haryana HC7 May 2025CRWP/3044/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Security cover writ petition (CRWP-3044-2024, Punjab & Haryana High Court, decided 07.05.2025, Tribhuvan Dahiya J.) by Harmohinder Singh alias Lucky seeking mandamus for protection amid alleged threat to life; interim armed PSO granted 05.04.2024; DSP Security affidavit dated 26.03.2025 and PRG meeting of 30.12.2024 found no specific threat within UT Chandigarh; petition disposed of with liberty to represent to authorities on any future threat to life or liberty.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to represent to the concerned respondents in case of any future threat to his life or liberty, which will be looked into and appropriate action taken. ¶20

Harmohinder Singh @ Lucky Vs Union of India and Other — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to represent to the concerned respondents in case of any future threat to his life or liberty, which will be looked into and appropriate action taken.

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who alleges a threat to his life, is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to provide adequate security cover to him. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

Since the petitioner is not facing any threat at present, the petition does not survive and is hereby disposed of, granting him liberty to represent to the concerned respondents in case of any future threat to his life or liberty, which will be looked into and appropriate action taken.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

There is no material before the Court to dispute the specific conclusion arrived at by the respondents that there is no specific threat to the petitioner at present.

¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRWP-3044-2024, decided 07.05.2025 by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (Tribhuvan Dahiya, J.). Harmohinder Singh alias Lucky, described as State President of a National Political Party, sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to provide adequate security cover on account of an alleged threat to his life. By interim order dated 05.04.2024 the Court had directed provision of at least one armed PSO, which was complied with. An affidavit dated 26.03.2025 of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Security Head, recorded the enquiry into three WhatsApp numbers from which threatening calls were statedly received; a Protection Review Group meeting was held on 30.12.2024; and intelligence agencies reported no specific threat to the petitioner within UT Chandigarh jurisdiction, with the existing security of 1 PSO continuing pending the Court's directions and regular patrols maintained around his residence and office. Finding no material to dispute the respondents' conclusion and no present threat, the Court disposed of the petition, granting the petitioner liberty to represent to the concerned respondents in case of any future threat to his life or liberty, to be looked into with appropriate action.

¶1

CRWP-3044-2024

¶2

204 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRWP-3044-2024 Date of Decision: 07.05.2025

¶4

HARMOHINDER SINGH ALIAS LUCKY . . . . Petitioner

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

¶7

. . . . Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA

¶9

Present: - Mr. Karanbir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Manish Bansal, Public Prosecutor, U.T., Chandigarh assisted by Mr. Ankur Bali, Additional Public Prosecutor, U.T., Chandigarh with Sub Inspector-Didar Singh.

¶11

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J.

¶12

The petition has been filed seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus for directing the respondents to provide adequate security cover to the petitioner, who is State President of a National Political Party, and has a threat to his life. Considering the submissions, this Court, vide interim order dated 05.04.2024, directed the respondents to provide at least one armed PSO to him as an interim measure till the next date of hearing.

¶13

In compliance thereof, he was provided with an armed PSO. Learned counsel for the U.T. submits that the allegation of threat to petitioner’s life has been enquired into from every angle. As of now, there is no specific threat to him by any means. The details of the enquiry carried out pertaining to the three Whatsapp numbers from which threatening calls were statedly received have been mentioned in the latest affidavit, dated 26.03.2025, filed by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Security Head Poonam Quarters, UT, Chandigarh. A meeting of a Protection Review Group (PRG) 2025.05.12 21:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶14

CRWP-3044-2024

¶15

was also convened on 30.12.2024 to discuss the matter regarding security to the petitioner. The affidavit records:

¶16

According to the report from Intelligence Agencies, "There is no specific threat to Mr. Harmohinder Singh @ Lucky, Leader of the Congress Party, residing at H. No. 1146, Sector-8-C, Chandigarh, from anyone within the jurisdiction of UT Chandigarh.

¶17

However, until the outcome of the High Court's directions in CRWP No. 3044/2024, the existing security of 1 PSO may continue. The next hearing for CRWP No. 3044/2024 is scheduled for 29.01.2025 in the Hon'ble High Court.

¶18

Additionally, the local police and PCR vehicle officials are instructed to conduct regular patrols around his residence at H. No. 1146, Sector-8-C, Chandigarh, as well as around his office at the Territorial Congress Committee located in Sector-35, Chandigarh.

¶19

Hence, it is prayed to look into the temporarily deployed security deployment matter of the petitioner on merit as "there is no specific threat to the petitioner at present from any means". Apart from the above explained position, other preventive measures have already been adopted by enhanced regular patrolling by PCR Vehicle/Cheeta Staff and Beat Staff officials and has been directed to remain extra vigilant in anticipation for ensuring area security at and around the residence as well around the office premises of the petitioner to thwart any untoward incident therein.

¶20

There is no material before the Court to dispute the specific conclusion arrived at by the respondents. Since the petitioner is not facing any threat at present, the petition does not survive and is hereby disposed of, granting him liberty to represent to the concerned respondents in case of any

¶21

Poonam 2025.05.12 21:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

CRWP-3044-2024

¶23

threat to his life or liberty in future, which will be looked into and an

¶24

appropriate action will be taken.

¶25

(TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA)

¶26

07.05.2025