Bombay HC directs Mumbai Police to consider providing security to Ex Army officer

Mumbai (Mahrashtra) [India], January 2 (ANI): Bombay High Court has directed Mumbai Police to look into the threat perception of an ex-serviceman who claimed to have been threatened by a Shiv Sena Corporator for opposing illegal construction at his plot.
Sujit Gajanan Apte is an ex-Army man who resides in Wadala area of Mumbai. He has filed a plea before Bombay HC and has requested to direct Mumbai Police to file an FIR on his complaint in RAK Marg Police Station and provide him with police security as he apprehends that Shiv Sena Corporater Amey Ghole may harm him for opposing encroachment on his property.
According to his petition in the High Court, Sujit Apte is having power of attorney from his brother on a land near by his house. There was an illegal Sai Temple built on property of his brother, which he opposed.
In 2017 BMC had demolished that temple structure after a complaint from Apte but the said land was again encroached by the same people who again built a temple.
In last month, BMC again demolished it but after that local corporator Amey Ghole and BMC officials reached the same plot and allegedly tried to threaten Sujit Apte, according to the petition.
Sujit Apte claimed that his property was attacked by goons of the politician and all CCTV cameras were broken.
Now he sought High Court's intervention and directions to police to act on his complaint given on December 13. Also he sought to provide him security cover.
In its order on December 29, Bombay HC issued notice to all respodents returnable January 13 and asked Mumbai police to consider his request for Security.
According to the Order, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that one Corporator of ruling party alongwith employees of the Corporation have entered in his house, therefore, he seeks protection.
He further submitted that Petitioner has already filed an application for police protection in the R.A.K. Marg Police Station. The aforesaid allegations are denied by the learned Counsel for the Respondent Corporation.
The aforesaid aspect will be examined on returnable date.
"However, in the interregnum the learned APP to inform incharge of Police Station in whose the jurisdiction Petitioner is residing, if necessary, to grant police protection to the Petitioner and his family," according to the Order. (ANI)