Sandeep Sunny vs. State Of Punjab And Others

Facts

The petitioner, Sandeep Sunny, filed a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus to protect his life and liberty and to direct respondent No. 2 to decide his representation dated 21.04.2023. The respondents, including the State of Punjab and police officials, filed a reply. The State counsel informed the Court that the petitioner's representation was marked for inquiry to the DSP, Circle, Khamano. During the inquiry, it was found that the matter pertained to the GST Department and no police action was required. Consequently, the complaint submitted by the petitioner was ordered to be filed, as no substance was found in it.

Held

The Court noted the statement made by the learned State counsel regarding the inquiry into the petitioner's representation. The inquiry revealed that the matter pertained to the GST Department and no action was required by the police. Consequently, the petitioner's complaint was ordered to be filed, as no substance was found in it. In view of this statement, the Court found no further orders to be required. The petition was disposed of with a liberty to the parties to avail their alternative remedies in accordance with law. The Court did not make any specific findings on the merits of the GST issue itself, nor did it delve into the specific provisions of GST law, as the matter was being resolved based on the police inquiry's conclusion.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to protect his life and liberty, in light of the findings of the inquiry regarding his representation? (Question of law and fact, concerning the scope of police intervention and protection of liberty). 2. Whether respondent No. 2 is obligated to decide the petitioner's representation dated 21.04.2023, and if so, what is the appropriate course of action given the inquiry report? (Question of law and fact, concerning administrative duty and the effect of inquiry findings). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus for protection of life and liberty and a direction for the decision of his representation. The specific arguments made by the petitioner are not detailed in the judgment beyond the prayers in the petition. Respondents' Arguments: The State counsel submitted that the petitioner's representation was inquired into, and it was found that the matter related to the GST Department, requiring no police action. The representation was therefore ordered to be filed by higher police officials as it lacked substance.