RAI SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE provision of security to very important persons and very very important persons, is complex one, which is being reviewed by the State Government from time to time on the basis of threat perception, which such persons are subjected to.

(2.) BESIDES the above, the provision of security depends on many other factors, resources of the State, strength of the police personnel etc. In the recent times, the provision of the security to political personalities as well as Officers and other persons, have become a status symbol. A man without two gunners behind him, is considered to be a common or if he moves under the umbrella of the security then he is considered a distinguished and very important person. Whenever life of a person is under threat and he comes to the Court for providing him security, the Courts often direct the State Government to consider the perception of threat and thereafter pass appropriate orders. 3. The petitioner, who is the Principal Secretary and whose wife is an important political functionary, was getting 2 + 8 house guard security (P. A. C.) 1+ 4 A. P. Guard, 1 + 4 ecscort, 2 gunners and one Sub- Inspector shadow. 4. On 2-1-1997 the State Government considering all aspect of the matter, withdrew the umbrella of security from the petitioner stating that he should be provided with 2 gunners at his residence (one at a particular time ). 5. Being aggrieved against the order of the State Government dated 2-1-1997, petitioner filed writ petition bearing No. 118 (MB) 1997. On 24-9-1997 the Court passed an interim order to the effect that till the final decision of the writ petition, the status quo regarding the provision of the security to the petitioner, be maintained. in pursuance of the order passed by this Court, the security umbrella which was given to the petitioner, continued. Thereafter, counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the State Government, in which it was averred that the situation, in which the security was provided to the petitioner, underwent a charige and hence on the basis of the threat proception, the Government be permitted by the Court to review the security provided to the petitioner. in the month of September, 1999 the writ petition was heard and the judgment was reserved. On 1-10-1999 the writ petition was dismissed and the interim order passed on 24-9-1999 was vacated. While dismissing the writ petition, the Division Bench expressed the view that the question of providing security or for that matter, adequate security is within the domain of the State Government, which has to take a decision on the basis of objective consideration and verification of the threat perception and gravity of the threat to the life of individual. The Division Bench did not find reason to interfere in the order passed by the State Government dated 2-1-1997 providing adequate security to the petitioner and withdrawing the rest of the security, which was provided to him vide order dated 3-6-1995. The Division Bench found that in the order dated 2-1-1997 the security of two gunner one at a time and one P. A. C. house guard was provided and therefore, in absence of any fresh decision being taken by the State Government, the State Government cannot justify in providing two gunners as has been stated in the subsequent affidavit filed in the year 1999. 6. As the Division Bench did not find any merit in the writ petition and, because the petitioner failed to make out any case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petition was dismissed, but it was made clear that it will always be open to the petitioner to approach the State Government by means of an application in case he genuinely feels that there is any grave and serious threat to his life for providing such or more security and the State Government would be at liberty to consider the said application. It was further provided that the State Government shall always be at liberty to make timely review of the security provided to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. 7. After the decision of this case on 1-10-1999, the petitioner has averred that on 31-10-1999, he has received a letter alleged to have been written by an organisation known as Khalistan Liberation Army, in which the petitioner was threatened for dire consequences. The petitioner again approached the State Government by filing a representation as directed by this Court for the reviewing of his security. The State Government appears to have made enquiries from its Officers and thereafter reached to a conclusion that considering the threat perception, the petitioner should be provided with the security of one gunner. 8. Being aggrieved against the said order of the State Government, present writ petition has been filed. 9. The State Government in its counter-affidavit submitted that after receiving the representation of the petitioner dated 1-12-1999, fresh report was called from the Local Intelligence Unit. The letter dated 31- 10-1999 alleged to have been written on the letter head of Khalistan Liberation Army was translated at the Intelligence Headquarter, which has also been annexed. In that letter it has been mentioned that the petitioner's wife has been appointed as receiver of a Gurdwara, as a result of which name of the entire Sikh community, has been slurred. Letter also indicated that petitioner has been indulging into some anti-social activities, which are not concealed to the scribe of the letter. It was further averred in the letter that the petitioner may increase such security as he likes but the scribe/organisation of the letter shall reply to him fists to fist. 10. Apparently, there appears to be a threat to the petitioner as alleged in the letter. The State Government after making due enquiries found that said letter was fake one. Although there are many signatories of the said letter but all the signatures were in the hand writing of one person. We need not delve into the question as to whether the letter was actually sent or if it was sent by a fake person or whether there is an apprehension of threat to the petitioner. That matter was looked into by the State Government after making various enquiries and the State Government came to the conclusion that considering the threat perception to the petitioner, which existed earlier, there needed a review because the conditions have changed, and the Government thought it appropriate to provide one gunner to the petitioner for the purposes of security. 11. Mr. A. P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the State Government while reviewing the threat perception to the petitioner reduced the security for ulterior motive, for the reason that the petitioner's wife was the Minister in the Government but she resigned and thereafter contested the election on the symbol of another party, as a result of which the State is vindictive against the petitioner. We are of the view that the foundation for malice, which has been introduced in this case by the petitioner, is not sufficient for this Court to intervene in the matter. 12. We have perused the relevant record, in which the case of the petitioner was dealt with. The noting which have been approved by the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Home, Govt. of U. P. , reveals that considering the threat perception and changed circumstances, the security, which was earlier given to the petitioner, deserved to be reduced and the provision of one gunner to the petitioner would be sufficient, it has further been averred in the noting that the provision of the security to the petitioner shall be reviewed by the State Government again whenever there would be actual threat to the life of the petitioner. 13. We are of the view that in case, petitioner feels and produce materials before the State Government that there is actual threat to his life, it will always be open for the State Government to review the matter and provide security to the petitioner in accordance with its resources and threat perception, for which no direction is necessary. The petitioner holds an important position, and there is no doubt that in case he will feel that his security, which has now been provided to him by means of the impugned order, is insufficient, he can approach the Principal Secretary, Home and the Chief Secretary, who may pass appropriate orders. We are of the view that this Court should not stroll into a field, which is exclusively meant for the executive authorities, which can decide such questions. Hence we are not inclined to interfere into the matter. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. The interim order, which was passed without admitting that writ petition, stands vacated. 14. After the pronouncement of this judgment, a verbal prayer has been made to grant a certificate to leave for filing special appeal before Hon'ble Supreme Court. We are of the view that no substantial question of law of public importance is involved in the writ petition. Accordingly the verbal request is rejected. Petition dismissed. .