IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (127) CRWP-6351-2025 Decided on :16.06 .2025 ANJNA GUPTA ……Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF UNION TERRITORY (UT) CHANDIGARH & OTHERS ……Respondent(s) CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Sukhbir Maandi, Advocate for the petitioner. **** SUMEET GOEL, JUDGE (Oral) 1. The petition in hand has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following substantive prayer(s):- “(i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the official respondents to protect the life and liberty of the petitioner from the hands of respondent Nos.3 to 17 and also for taking action against respondent Nos.3 to 17 for threatening the petitioner and forcibly tried to take possession over the property of the Temple, in the interest of justice. (ii) With the further prayer that the official respondents be directed to look into the representation dated 30.05.2025 (Annexure P-3) submitted by the petitioners in time bound manner, in the interest of justice. (iii) Any other order, direction may kindly be issued as per the facts and circumstance of the case, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing for sometime has limited his prayer by stating that he would be satisfied, for the nonce, if a direction is issued to respondent No.2 (Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh) to consider and take a conscious decision on the representation NAVEEN NAGPAL 2025.06.16 15:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment HIgh Court Chandigarh CRWP-6351-2025 P a g e | 2 dated 30.05.2025 made by the petitioner (copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure P-3 with the petition in hand) in a time-bound manner. 3. Notice of motion. 4. On the strength of advance copy, Mr. Prateek Rathee, Additional Public Prosecutor has entered appearance on behalf of respondent Nos.1 & 2. He has urged that he has no objection in case limited prayer made by the petitioner, for decision of his representation dated 30.05.2025 (Annexure P-3), is directed for. 5. At this stage, Mr. Akshit Pathania, Advocate has caused appearance on behalf of respondent Nos.8, 12, 14, 15 & 16, on their own volition. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the rival party(s) and upon perusal of the paper-book, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the petition in hand with the following directions: (i) Respondent No.2 (Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh) is mandated to look into the representation dated 30.05.2025 (Annexure P- 3) moved by the petitioner, objectively consider the grievance(s) raised therein & take ratiocinated decision thereupon within a period of 7 days from today. It is hoped and expected that the said authority (Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh) shall take a pragmatic decision and requisite consequential steps accordingly, as per law. (ii) No order as to costs. (SUMEET GOEL) June 16, 2025 JUDGE Naveen Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No NAVEEN NAGPAL 2025.06.16 15:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment HIgh Court Chandigarh