Uttarakhand High Court
WPCRL/1676/2025 of M/S K B SYSTEM PVT. LTD Vs SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE on 3 June 2026
Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPCRL No. 1676 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Addl.
SL.
No.
Date
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
WPCRL No. 1676 of 2025
Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned AGA for the State.
3. Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Abhay Kulshrestha, learned counsel for the private respondent.
4. Petitioner with regard to his grievance has already moved a representation to SSP, Haridwar on 16.07.2019. It is argued that despite making complaint, the SSP has not taken any action on it. He further submits that petitioner is hundred per cent disabled and he is being harassed by the respondent, which was also reported to the police officials but no action has been taken by them.
5. He further submits that though a remedy is available to him to file an application under Section 175 (3) BNSS, 2023 but taking into consideration that petitioner is hundred per cent disabled direction may be issued to the SSP, Haridwar to examine the matter and take appropriate steps.
6. On arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Sr. Advocate for the respondent, submits that complaint of the petitioner is completely baseless and in fact, he has never worked in the industry.
7. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State, submits that if petitioner made a complaint to the SSP, then SSP is under legal obligation to take a decision on the grievance highlighted by the petitioner.
8. In such view of the matter, instant writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction to SSP, Haridwar to examine the complaint, which is annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the petition, and also interact with the petitioner and examine the record and take appropriate steps, as per law and if SSP, Haridwar, comes to the conclusion that the version of the respondent is also necessary, he may call the Managing Director of respondent no. 3 and after examining the matter, take appropriate steps, as per law. The entire exercise shall be concluded by the SSP, Haridwar positively within a month from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 03.06.2026 SKS