news details |
|
|
| HC dismisses LPA with liberty to appellant to approach appropriate authority | | Security cover ex-dy CM's PRO | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Feb 3: In the case of undue security cover to then PRO to ex-deputy chief minister Kewal Sharma (forest guard), a high division bench of Chief Justice N Paul Vasanthakumar and Justice Bansi Lal Bhat today allowed the appellant's counsel to withdraw the appeal with liberty to approach the appropriate authority for seeking action against the delinquent police officers who had provided him security.
Earlier, the counsel said the writ court had fallen in error by not directing action against then SSPs (Jammu) -- Atul Goel and Anand Jain -- who had provided undue security cover to Kewal in breach of the guidelines on the subject.
Another counsel referred to the portion of the writ court judgment wherein it was clearly stated: "It is very strange that merely on the verbal request of Kewal's wife, then SSP, Jammu, deployed four PSOs with him and also deputed four security guards at his residence without even bothering to ascertain the allegations or investigating the matter in its right perspective. How could a police officer of the rank of SSP provide such a huge security to a mere forest guard and that too only on the verbal request of his wife, when, besides other allegations, serious charges of amassing huge wealth and properties allegedly by indulging in unlawful means and immoral activities had been levelled against him. It cannot be done without the knowledge of higher ups and although the security provided to Kewal has been withdrawn, the higher police authorities too seem to be under some sort of pressure or were part of the entire episode."
After hearing them, the bench was of the view that the prayer made in the writ petition was only to the extent of disclosing the names of officers and politicians on whose behest Kewal was provided security cover in breach of the guidelines on the subject. The bench thoroughly examined the prayers made in the petition and observed that there was no prayer for seeking action against the delinquent police officers. At this stage, the petitioner's counsel sought permission of the bench to withdraw the LPA filed against the judgment of the single judge with a liberty to approach the appropriate authority for seeking action against the delinquent police officers who had provided undue security cover to Kewal.
The bench then dismissed the LPA but permitted the counsel to withdraw the appeal with liberty to approach the appropriate authority for seeking action against the delinquent police officers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
