Read Order: Tejinder Singh v. State Of Punjab And Others

LE Staff

Chandigarh, October 26,2021: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the DGP, Punjab, Chandigarh, to examine the representation and take appropriate decision in a case wherein a lawyer has been receiving threats from bad elements after raising the issue of corruption in RTO Office, Ludhiana and getting the news about the same published in print media.

This petition had been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, seeking issuance of directions to official respondents to protect the life and liberty of the petitioner, which was alleged to be in danger at the hands of private respondents.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner, being an Editor and Advocate, used to raise his voice on the public issues regarding corruption in the Govt. departments and societies. The petitioner also has been visiting different parts of the State with his campaign against corruption, and on one occasion, when he was visiting District Ludhiana and campaigning with regard to RTI and corruption, he was approached by several persons with regard to corruption in the RTO Office, Ludhiana. 

According to him, no official would do the official work without taking bribe. It was submitted that the petitioner went to the office of RTO Ludhiana and found that there was open corruption going on in the department through the agents appointed by the officials, especially the fifth respondent, who is working as a Clerk on deputation. 

It was contended that the petitioner had raised this issue before the higher authorities and also got news about the same published in print media. It was also stated that the petitioner had been receiving threats from bad elements and had also been pressurized to compromise the matter with the fifth respondent.

In this regard, a representation dated February 7,2020 was given to the DGP, Punjab, Chandigarh for providing him protection, but till date no action was taken. The petitioner thus prayed for the issuance of necessary directions.

Hence, the Bench of Justice Manoj Bajaj, upon considering the above background and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, disposed off the petition, with a direction to second respondent DGP, Punjab, Chandigarh to examine the representation and take appropriate decision in accordance with law.

0 CommentsClose Comments

Leave a comment