0

To issue order or direction thereby directing the opposite parties to continue the police protection to the petitioner for the security of his life and property

To issue order or direction thereby directing the opposite parties to continue the police protection to the petitioner for the security of his life and property- High Court of Allahabad.

Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent to continue the police protection to the petitioner for the security for his life and property, and the same issue was held in the judgement passed by a division bench judges Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal, Chief Justice Hon’ble, Mr. Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Judge Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Saroj Yadav, Judge, in the matter Krishna Dutt Sharma  v/s State of U.P. and others[ MISC. SINGLE No. – 4531 of 2019 ] dealt with an issue mentioned above.

In this case the learned counsel for the petitioner submit that’s the When the petition was taken up for hearing on February 15, 2019, the learned counsel for the petitioner had referred to judgment of this Court in Zulfiqar Ahmad Bhutto Vs. State of U.P and others (Writ-C No. 52652 of 2016) decided on 04.11.2016 in support of his argument that his appeal filed against order passed by the District Level Committee to the Divisional Level Committee be directed to be decided. The learned Single Judge, while referring to number of judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, was of the opinion that the judgment in Zulfiqar Ahmad Bhutto Vs. State of U.P and others’ case (supra) requires re-consideration.

It is claimed that petitioner is a social worker assisting weaker sections of the society and is also carrying on business in the name and style of M/s M.K. Enterprises. He also contested the assembly election in the year 2012 as an independent candidate from Lucknow West constituency. On account of continuous threats received by him, he moved application for grant of security. As the request was not being considered, the petitioner filed Writ Petition (M/B) No. 16850 of 2016 wherein direction was issued for consideration of his claim. However, the same having been rejected by District Level Security Committee, he preferred appeal before the Divisional Level Security Committee. However, the same is not being considered. In support of the argument that a direction deserves to be issued to the Divisional Level Security Committee for deciding the appeal pending before it, reliance was placed upon the order passed by this Court in Zulfiqar Ahmad Bhutto’s case .

The primary argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once there is a hierarchy of committees provided in the policy in terms of which threat perception to a person is to be assessed, the order passed by the authority at District Level shall certainly be appealable before the higher authorities at Divisional Level and thereafter at State Level. Hence, the order earlier passed by this Court in Zulfiqar Ahmad Bhutto’s case (supra) does not require reconsideration and a direction be issued to the Divisional Level Security Committee to hear and decide the appeal filed by him. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the order passed by this Court in Zulfiqar Ahmad Bhutto’s case (supra) does not lay down good law. The policy has been framed by Government for examining threat perception to the person seeking security at the state expense

The court perused the facts and arguments presented, it was the opinion that – “So far as the merits of the controversy is concerned, the prayer made by the petitioner is that he may be provided security cover on account of alleged threat perception in his opinion”. Once the competent authority in the Government has already examined the issue and found that there is no threat to the petitioner and no security is required to be given at State expenses, we do not find any reason to take a different view for the reason that this Court does not have any expertise to assess the threat perception to any person. Hence, even the relief prayed for on merits is also misconceived.”

Click here to read the judgement

Judgement Reviewed by Sakshi Mishra

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat