IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 303 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 5, 2011 Lt. Col. R.S. Yadav (Retired) ...Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BL HON'BL HON'BL HON'BLE M E M E M E MR. JUSTICE . JUSTICE . JUSTICE . JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH Present: Dr. K.S. Yadav, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Addl. AG, Haryana, for respondent Nos. 1 to 7. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. M.M. KUMAR, J. M.M. KUMAR, J. M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 19.1.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the petitioner-appellant was taken in custody as per the valid order passed by the competent authority and if he was humiliated or harassed in judicial custody then he may approach appropriate forum for award of compensation because questions of fact would need to be determined before passing any order. Accordingly, the petitioner-appellant has been relegated to the remedy of seeking compensation by approaching appropriate forum. LPA No. 303 of 2011 (O&M) 2 2. When the instant appeal came up for consideration, notice of motion was issued. The respondent State requested for time for filing of additional affidavit because the writ petition was decided without securing their stand. Accordingly, written statement by respondent Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 7 and separate reply by respondent Nos. 3 and 6 have been filed. The allegation of harassment, humiliation and hand-cuffing have been disputed and denied, as is evident from perusal of paras 2 to 5 of the reply filed by respondent Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 7. Similar reply has been filed by other respondents. 3. Keeping in view the aforesaid disputed questions of fact, we are of the considered opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. The appeal is wholly without merit. Dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH) September 5 September 5 September 5 September 5, 2011 , 2011 , 2011 , 2011 JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE Pkapoor