CWP No.2842 of 2011.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.2842 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 15.02.2011 **** Malkit Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. KS Boparai, Advocate for the petitioner ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). Notice of motion. Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, learned DAG Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 only. In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no necessity to call upon the respondents to file their counter-reply(ies) at this stage. (2). The petitioner seeks police protection for his person and property which are alleged to have been threatened by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Village Shergarh who is bent upon to illegally discharge the sullage/drain water into the agricultural land owned by the petitioner. It is alleged that the Civil Court has already granted ad interim injunction vide order dated 30.09.2010 in favour CWP No.2842 of 2011.doc - 2 – of the petitioner, however, the said order is being blatantly violated as no police protection has been provided to the petitioner. (3). Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of relief sought, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh Sahib to verify the petitioner’s allegations and if there is an injunction order passed by the Civil Court in his favour, it is directed that the authorities shall be obligated to implement the same in its true letter and spirit. (4). It is further directed that in the event of continuous default by the private respondent(s), the Civil Court shall proceed independently against the violators under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code. (5). This order, however, shall not be construed to mean as if this Court has accepted the petitioner’s allegations, moreso when the affected respondents have not been heard at this stage. (6). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 15.02.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge