AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 271 wordsS.K. Mishra, J
In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
“i. a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to protect the person and property of the petitioner from the respondent Nos.5 to 10, and also direct the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to take appropriate action against the private respondent Nos.5 to 10 in accordance with law.
ii. Any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case”.
The learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that on 18.01.2022, the petitioner has already made a representation before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Haridwar for protecting her life, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexure No.4 to this writ petition, but nothing has been done as yet. Having been left with no other remedy, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
In that view of the matter, we dispose of the writ petition by directing the Station House Officer, P.S. Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar to provide protection of twenty-one days to the petitioner. In the meantime, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Haridwar-respondent No.2 shall take a decision on the representation of the petitioner (Annexure No.4) after taking appropriate information from the S.H.O. concerned or any other reliable sources.
Let a free copy of this order be immediately handed over to Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand, for early compliance.
Urgency copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties, as per Rules.