Jagjit Singh Sehdev And ORS v. State Of Punjab And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRWP No.2730 of 2020 Date of Decision:17.03.2020 Jagjit Singh Sehdev and others ......Petitioners Vs State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH Present: Mr. Sandeep Wadhwan, Advocate for the petitioners.

**** RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J.(Oral) By way of filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek issuance of necessary directions to respondents No.1 to 3 in the context of protection of their lives and personal liberties from being invaded by private respondent No.4.

Petitioners have pleaded incriminating facts in the petition and further submitted that they have also moved representations dated 1.12.2019 and 27.12.2019 before the different authorities in hierarchy, but no action has been taken so far.

Precisely for the grievance in question, the representation dated 27.12.2019 filed by the petitioners before

CRWP-2730-2020 the Director General of Police, Punjab is pending. The prayer involved therein is that the petitioners be provided appropriate security and for that directions be issued to respondent No.3 to take appropriate action in the context of order dated 29.11.2018 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Amritsar vide which respondent No.4 was restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff/petitioners trustees of the trust property except in due course of law.

Notice of motion to respondents No.1 to 3.

On asking of the Court, Mr. Jagmohan Singh Ghumman, DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of Staterespondents No.1 to 3. In the very nature of allegations and in view of nature of order which this Court proposes to pass at this stage, there is no necessity to call upon any response from the official respondents.

Respondent No.2 shall ascertain the truth in the allegations of the petitioners and would pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Respondent No.2 would be at liberty to assess the threat perception of the petitioners and would act in accordance with law. Respondent No.2 would also be at liberty to join the petitioners or any other person acquainted with the facts of the case. Respondent No.2 shall form an independent opinion, without being influenced by any statement of fact

CRWP-2730-2020 recorded hereinabove.

It would be appreciated, if needful in deciding the representation is done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Petition stands disposed of.

March 17, 2020 (RAJ MOHAN SINGH) geeta JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No