Rajiv Goel Vs State of Punjab and Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Rajiv Goel Vs State of Punjab and Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to respondent No.3-Senior Superintendent of Police, Mohali, to decide the representation dated 08.04.2025 of the petitioner, placed on record as Annexure P-5, within a period of two weeks from today by passing a speaking order thereon dealing with each and every grievance raised by the petitioner.

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.4 misused his official powers by issuing more than 60 traffic challans within a period of 2-3 months against the petitioner, who is his neighbour, with intent to harass him. +2 more

Ratio / Principle

Without going into the merits of the case and without calling for any reply, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3-Senior Superintendent of Police, Mohali, to decide the petitioner's representation dated 08.04.2025 (Annexure P-5) within a period of two weeks by passing a speaking order dealing with each and every grievance raised by the petitioner.

Key takeaways

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a mandamus to direct respondents No.1 to 3 to ensure that the petitioner's right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 was not violated by respondent No.4, who allegedly issued more than 60 traffic challans within 2-3 months to harass the petitioner, his neighbour, by misusing official powers; an application dated 08.04.2025 to respondent No.3-Senior Superintendent of Police, Mohali (Annexure P-5) remained undecided. HELD: Without going into the merits and without calling for any reply, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3-Senior Superintendent of Police, Mohali, to decide the representation dated 08.04.2025 within two weeks by passing a speaking order dealing with each and every grievance raised by the petitioner; pending application(s), if any, also stood disposed of. By Sudeepti Sharma J. (Oral).

1

CRWP-4177-2025 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

109 CRWP-4177-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: April 29, 2025

Rajiv Goel ......Petitioner

Vs.

State of Punjab and others ......Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Present: Mr.Aditya Dassaur, Advocate for the petitioner

Mr. Amit Shukla, AAG, Punjab.

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (ORAL)

The present writ petition is under Article 226 of Constitution of India for seeking issuance of direction in the nature of mandamus for directing respondents No.1 to 3 to ensure that the petitioner’s right to life and personal liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, is not violated by respondent No.4 by misusing his official capacity.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent No.4 has issued almost more than 60 traffic challans within a period of 2-3 months. He further contends that respondent No.4 is neighbour of the petitioner. Respondent No.4 is intentionally trying to harass the petitioner by misusing his official powers. He further contends that the petitioner has even moved an application to respondent No.3-Senior Superintendent of Police, Mohali, on 08.04.2025 through registered post, which is placed on record with the present writ petition as Annexure P-5. Till date, no decision has been taken on the

Sonia Arora 2025.05.01 09:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

2

CRWP-4177-2025 (O&M)

same. He further submits that he would be satisfied if respondent No.3-Senior Superintendent of Police, Mohali, is directed to look into the matter and decide the representation dated 08.04.2025 of the petitioner in a time bound manner.

Notice of motion.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Amit Shukla, AAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and does not object to the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Without going into the merits of the case as well as without calling

for any reply, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3-Senior Superintendent of Police, Mohali, to decide the representation dated 08.04.2025 of petitioner which is placed on record as Annexure P-5, within a period of two weeks from today by passing a speaking order thereon dealing with each and every grievance raised by the petitioner.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

(SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE

April 29, 2025 sonia arora

Whether speaking/reasoned: Speaking Whether reportable: Yes / No

Sonia Arora 2025.05.01 09:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document