The Bombay High Court on Tuesday directed RAK Marg police station to determine if an ex-Army officer, allegedly threatened over property by a Shiv Sena corporator, wanted safety.
The route got here in response to a plea filed by the officer, Sujit Apte, claiming that Corporator Anil Ghole, together with staff of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), entered his property and threatened him. He sought the HC’s intervention in making certain police cowl for him. He additional alleged that the police refused to file an FIR towards the corporator.
On December 29, a division bench of Justice SS Shinde and Justice Abhay Ahuja heard his plea, filed by means of advocates Dhrutiman Joshi and Amey Sawant. It mentioned a corporator of the ruling get together, together with staff of the municipal physique, entered his home on December 13 and, subsequently, he has sought police safety. Apte submitted that he had already filed an utility for defense on the RAK Marg police station.
The petitioner additionally sought instructions to the Mumbai Police to register an FIR towards the corporator and two others for threatening him with ‘dire consequences’ and supply him safety.
The petition additionally sought the courtroom route for publication of data on district-wise committees that had been constituted, together with contact particulars at Taluka degree, on the federal government’s web site in order that ex-servicemen and their households can increase grievances.
As per his plea, Apte’s brother, who lives within the United Kingdom, had bought a property in Wadala in 2016, which has a slum close by and a spiritual construction proper subsequent to it. The petitioner mentioned the construction is against the law and demolition was carried out in 2017 by the BMC. The ex-serviceman, who has energy of lawyer over his brother’s property, claimed that some folks reconstructed the temple and it was razed once more by the BMC on December 11, 2020.
It was alleged that the corporator and some others gathered at his property on December 13 and threatened him in regards to the demolition, prompting him to lodge a police grievance. The counsel representing the company denied the allegation.
After listening to submissions on either side, the courtroom issued a discover to respondents and famous, “The aforesaid aspect will be examined on a returnable date. However, in interregnum, the additional public prosecutor to inform an in-charge of the concerned police station in whose jurisdiction the petitioner is residing, if necessary, to grant police protection to the petitioner and his family.”
The courtroom scheduled the following listening to on January 13.