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
7 paragraphs · 229 wordsVipin Sanghi, CJ
The petitioners have preferred the present Writ Petition to seek a mandamus to the respondent-authorities, who are respondent nos. 1 to 5, to provide protection to the petitioners, since the petitioners apprehends threat and harm from respondent nos. 6 and 7, with whom the petitioners have some running civil disputes.
Counsel for respondent nos. 6 and 7 states that the said respondents have not issued any threat or coercion to the petitioners, and, on behalf of the said respondents, he undertakes that the said respondents shall not issue any threat or coercion, or cause any harm directly or indirectly to the petitioners, and the parties shall ventilate their rights and grievances in civil proceedings.
This statement of counsel for respondent nos. 6 and 7 is taken on record, and the said respondents shall remain bound by the same, and are directed not to take law into their own hands; issue any threat or coercion to the petitioners; or cause any harm to them.
The State shall ensure compliance of this undertaking. In case any complaint is received from the petitioners in relation to any threat or coercion, the same shall be examined by the SHO concerned, and appropriate action shall be taken.
The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
In sequel thereto, pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.