Mukul Ghai v. State Of Haryana And Others

CRWP No.6676 of 2022 (O&M) ...1...

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Sr.No.113 CRWP No.6676 of 2022 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14th July, 2022.

Mukul Ghai

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana & Others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA

Present:

Mr. D.S. Matya, Advocate, for the petitioner.

* * * MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J.

(ORAL) CRM-W No.844 of 2022 Heard on this application.

Keeping in view the reasons as mentioned in the present application, the same is allowed.

CRWP No.6676 of 2022 At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far as the relief sought by the petitioner regarding taking legal action against respondent No.7 is concerned, the petitioner would be resorting to the appropriate alternative and efficacious remedy, as may be permissible to him under law, for this purpose and as regards his prayer qua the protection of his life and liberty, he would be moving a fresh representation to respondent No.2- Commissioner of Police, Panchkula, exclusively praying therein for the above-said protection only. He further prays that the said SEEMA SHARMA 2022.07.14 18:22 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CRWP No.6676 of 2022 (O&M) ...2...

respondent be directed to look into and take appropriate action on the fresh representation of the petitioner within some specific time frame and the present petition may be disposed of accordingly. Ms. Ambika Sood, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, who has appeared on behalf of respondents No.1 to 6 in this case in pursuance of the copies of the present petition having been sent to the respondent-State in advance, has no objection to the above-discussed submission as well as the prayer as made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

Resultantly, the petition in hand stands disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 that in case, the petitioner moves any fresh representation to him restricting his prayer therein to the protection of his life and liberty only, he shall look into the same and if the petitioner would be found to be genuinely deserving the said protection, then he shall take appropriate action strictly in accordance with law, in the given set of the facts and circumstances of the matter, preferably within a period of ten days. (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) JUDGE 14.07.2022.

seema Whether speaking/reasoned?

Yes Whether Reportable?

No SEEMA SHARMA 2022.07.14 18:22 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment