Dhanak Of Humanity And ANR v. State Of Haryana And ORS




   
  

 !"#$"%&'&#()**+







 







 

 



 





 
 )  ,-

* .


/
 .

--
 




  
!" 







#  
  
#






/
 .

--0* 1 2


$
 



%
 &
 
 "


%




 

'
" 




&

  
( 



%
%
&& 

'
&& &&
  
'
 
()

*




+




%



,-,.././

&&% 

%

0All cases listed today have been taken up for hearing by way of video conferencing because of the situation existing due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Having seen the status report filed by the Commissioner of Police, Gurugram, dated 09.11.2020, annexing therewith in vernacular form the statement shown to be recorded of the alleged detenue, i.e. Nikita Dhankar, daughter of Ram Chander Dhankar (respondent no.4), before the learned JMIC, Gurugram, on 05.11.2020, stating to the effect that she knew the petitioner but she does not wish to have anything to do with him any further, I would infact find no reason to entertain this petition,

 especially as upon a query made to learned counsel for the petitioners, as to whether he doubts the identity of the person who made the statement before the learned JMIC, he has very fairly submitted that he does not at this stage at least doubt her identity.

However, the prayer made in the petition reads as follows: i) issue writ of Habeas Corpus and or any other writ, order exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 to produce the detenue Ms.Nikita Dhankar before this Hon'ble Court by appointing the warrant officer; ii) issue writ of mandamus and or any other writ, order exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, directing strict compliance of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as "Shakti Vahini vs. UOI" vide WP(c) No.231 of 2010by the respondents and/or compliance of the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in the present writ petition;

iii) for issuance of any other appropriate writ, order or direction to which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper keeping in view in the facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of the petitioner;

iv) to dispense with the service of advance notice to the respondents;

v) to dispense with the filing of certified copies of annexures; vi) to allow the writ petition with costs;

Whether or not, after the main issue of the alleged illegal detention of the alleged detenue seems to be primarily satisfied, the writ petition would be maintainable or not is a moot point, but since counsel for the petitioner specifically states that even the information sought by him from the State of Haryana under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, has been evasively answered, and that in fact the communication sent by the DGP, Haryana, to the Assistant Registrar, PIL (Writ) of the Supreme Court on June 02, 2018, is actually not in compliance of the directions issued by the Apex Court on March 27, 2018, in Writ Petition (Civil)No.231 of 2010, he would place on record any orders passed by that court after 02.06.2020, with regard to to

+ compliance/noncompliance of the directions given by that court. Adjourned to 22.01.2021.

If of course the direction is not complied with, though obviously a remedy would be available before the Supreme Court to the petitioners, however, since all other courts of law, including High Courts obviously, are bound to ensure compliance of directions issued by the Apex Court of the country, any action to be taken by this court thereupon would be considered afterwards.1



  

 


  

 &


&
 
/,/2././
% 


'
  


 "


 
'
3'&

  
4 

+




54 !

&6
(.7,

./,/

&
8

 

 

9 

 3
"



.:/7./,-
 
 &
" & 
%





;"
%



  



&
" &





 '





'




%

%

 



%


& ' 

 &


"


 


 "



 
'
3'&

  
4 



  3
"
5 6

!

'
 &&
" & 
%




9
!

%


 
 '

 





 



%

%
%


& ' 



**+ 



/
 .

--


&  



+ 
  <
"'3# + 
 '&

"'3#