SHREE CHAND Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks the following directions to the respondents:

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts are that the petitioner, resident of 471, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi claims to have lodged a complaint on 6.5.2006 with the police authorities to stop unauthorized construction by his neighbour Sunil. It is alleged that instead lodging a First Information Report (FIR) against the alleged offenders, the petitioner was detained in the police post from 10:00 AM to 4:00 PM and was harassed and tortured. The petitioner also avers to his being abused. In these circumstances, he claims to have complained to the superior officers on 15.5.2006 which led to his statement being recorded by the Delhi Police Vigilance Department. It is submitted that despite a notice to the respondents on 29.5.2006, asking them to pay damages, and for permission under Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act, the latter did nothing. The Writ Petition was filed on 17.7.2006. The petitioner besides relying on the contentions in the proceedings also relies upon the decision in Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India : AIR 2005 SC 3353 particularly paras 40 & 41 which deal with the obligation of government authorities in regard to reply to statutory notice.

(3.) DURING the course of the proceedings, the respondents were asked to furnish a copy of the vigilance enquiry report; the same was produced on 6.12.2007. Relevant part of the said report reads as follows: