AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J
Petitioners seeks a mandamus for directing the official respondents to take necessary steps for protection of their life and liberty and by voicing an apprehension and threat to the same at the hands of private respondents No.7 to 17.
Counsel would submit that the private respondents have an eye on the property of the petitioners. Father of petitioner No.1 had died an unnatural death. Petitioner No.3 is the mother of petitioner No.1 and is aged 55 years. It has been asserted that private respondents are issuing repeated threats to the petitioners only with an oblique motive to grab the property.
Counsel would confine the scope of the instant writ petition only with regard to protection of life and and liberty of the petitioners.
In view of the above and without even ascertaining the correctness of the averments made in the petition, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the instant writ petition in terms of granting liberty to the petitioners to approach respondents No.3 and 4 confined to the aspect of threat that they are facing to their life and liberty.
In the eventuality of any such application being made, respondents No.3 and 4 would be obligated to have the matter examined and to thereafter take steps as deemed fit and warranted in accordance with law.
Disposed of.