A mandamus i.e., “a judicial writ issued as a command to an inferior court or ordering a person to perform a public or statutory duty.” It Was filed as the private respondents(No. 3-7) who committed trespass also threatened to kill the petitioner, the petition was to direct the police (respondents No. 1-2) to protect the life of the petitioner under article 21 of the Indian constitution i.e. “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”.
This judgment and the final order were given in the high court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh on the 6th of July 2021, by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri in the case of Dr. Farooq Mahish v/s State of Punjab and others CRWP-6120-2021, the proceedings of the court were held through video conferencing due to covid-19. A petition was filed in the nature of mandamus under article 226and article 277 of the Indian Constitution i.e. empowers the high courts to issue, to any person or authority, including the government and gives directions, orders, or writs, including writs in the nature of mandamus. Article 227 determines that every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories.
The following are the facts of the case, the counsel for the petitioners Mr. Bhavesh Aggarwal representing as the advocate for the petitioner held that at 10:45 A.M. on the 4th of June 2021 three people in the connivance (willingness to allow or be secretly involved in an immoral or illegal act) of the owner of a medical store. The three persons manhandled the petitioner and made a mockery of his religious attire and abused the petitioner publically after trespassing into the property of Anglicon Mission i.e. Kabristan, near Qadian Octri, Batala which has been duly controlled and managed by some mission since 2007.
According to the petitioner, the private respondents also threatened to kill him. The petitioner however approached the police station and there was no response from the police. The evidence report of approaching to the police has been filed vide annexure P-1. Therefore this mandamus has been filed to direct the police to protect the life and liberty of the petitioner under article 21. The state of Punjab represented by deputy advocate general Mr. Randhir Singh Thind held that he has accepted the notice of the petitioner and does not wish to raise any objection for the same and the present petition is required to be disposed of by directing the police (respondents 1-2) to protect the petitioner in accordance with the law.
The court concluded that “This Court does not wish to go into the merits of the controversy inter-se between the petitioner and the private respondents but this Court is satisfied that this petition can be disposed of at this stage without even calling for a reply from the official respondents since the scope of the petition is confined only for the protection of the life of petitioners. Consequently, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider the representation (Annexure P-1) which has been filed by way of registered post and in case so required to take appropriate action in accordance with the law. Let the needful be done within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.”
