AJAY KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has approached this Court for a writ of mandamus directing Respondent No.2/Dainik Jagran and Respondent No.3/Hindustan Times to conceal the identity of the Petitioner while circulating news or any article carried out by them wherein the name of the Petitioner figures. In order to ensure that the Petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the Union of India to ensure strict compliance of the Judgment passed by the Apex Court in People's Union for Civil Liberties & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2014) 10 SCC 635.

(2.) The facts, as stated in the Writ Petition are that the Respondent No.4, who is the Assistant Commissioner of Police, is a close associate of a land mafia in the area of Burari and has an eye on the property of the Petitioner. It is alleged that there is a constant threat to the Petitioner and his family members from enjoying their property. It is stated that W.P.(Crl.) 3464/2023 has been filed by the mother of the Petitioner to curb the procedural overreach of Respondent No.4. It is pertinent to mention that the said Writ Petition has not been filed with the present Writ Petition. The Petitioner has not even stated the prayer of the said Petition in the present Writ Petition. It is the case of the Petitioner that only with the sole motive to jeopardise the case of the mother of the petitioner and to misguide this court from inquiring the procedural overreach carried out by Respondent No.4, Respondent No.4 briefed Respondent No. 2/Dainik Jagran & Respondent No. 3/Hindustan Times regarding a case which is pending adjudication before the Consumer Forum, Lucknow, in C/297/2019. It is submitted by the Petitioner that the publication of such material is likely to have an adverse effect on the Writ Petition which is pending before this Court and also on the consumer case pending in the Consumer Forum at Lucknow. It is also pertinent to mention here that the Petitioner has also not filed a copy of the consumer complaint along with the present Writ Petition. This Court is, therefore, not in a position to appreciate the relief sought in the Writ Petition which is pending before this Court or the relief sought in the consumer complaint which is pending before the Consumer Forum, Lucknow. Without revealing anything as to what is the nature of the Writ Petition which is pending in this Court and which, according to the Petitioner, is likely to be affected by the press clippings in question, the Petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:

(3.) A perusal of the newspaper cuttings only reveal that a suspended Constable, who is involved in a fake encounter which took place in Connaught Place, is an accomplice in an insurance fraud. The newspaper reports mentions that certain cars have been stolen and in the insurance claims that have been lodged in respect of those cars the chasis number of the stolen cars does not match with the manufacture year.