IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6818 of 2009 Date of decision: May 5, 2009. Ajay Kapoor ...Petitioner(s) v. State of Haryana & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral) Notice of motion to respondents No.1 to 3 only. Shri Ravi Dutt Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on their behalf. For the time being, there appears to be no necessity to issue any notice to respondents No.4 and 5 or to seek reply from the served respondents. The petitioner seeks a mandamus to direct respondents No.2 and 3 to ensure that no harm is caused to his own life and liberty and that of his family members at the hands of respondent No.4, allegedly in connivance with respondent No.5. As per the petitioner's allegations, respondent no.5 is running more than one business houses and the petitioner was also employed by himas an Estate Manager. Since the petitioner was not paid salary for some period, he has filed two civil suits in that regard in the civil courts at Delhi. In order to pressurize the petitioner, it is alleged that respondent No.4, who is SHO, Police Station Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon is sending threatening messages to the petitioner and his family members at the instance of respondent No.5. The record does suggest that both the business units of respondent No.5, where the petitioner was employed, are located in Delhi. The petitioner as well as respondent No.5 both are residents of Delhi. It is stated that except a warehouse store of the company, nothing is located within the territorial jurisdiction of Gurgaon. That being so, prima-facie, the so-called inquiry initiated by respondent No.4 or his action of sending constables to the petitioner's residence in odd hours, amounts to an act of arm-twisting. However, it is not expedient or desirable for this court to express any final opinion in this regard at this stage. Suffice it to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to respondents No.2 and 3 to take cognizance of the petitioner's complaints, including the legal notice dated 20.4.2009 (Annexure P-15) and redress his grievance in accordance with law. Respondents No.2 & 3 are directed specifically to inquire into as to on what basis respondent No.4 assumed jurisdiction in the matter and proceeded against the petitioner? If it is found that respondent No.4 has exceeded his jurisdiction, especially in connivance with respondent No.5 and/or otherwise, disciplinary action shall be taken against him and a compliance report shall be sent to this Court. Disposed of. Dasti. May 5, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge