RAM VEER UPADHYA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. In the aforesaid petitions common questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, the said petitions were heard together.

(2.) IN the writ petitions No. 16231 of 1995, 16419 of 1995 and 16441 of 1995, petitioners pray for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders passed by the respondents dated 9-6- 1995, 10-6-1995 and 11-6-1995 respectively, whereby the security guards earlier provided to them are sought to be withdrawn by the respondents and in writ petition No. 16439 of 1995 petitioner prays for a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to continue to provide the facility of security guard provided to him earlier.

(3.) NEITHER any law nor any rule or regulation regulating the security guard or gunners etc. was brought of the notice of the court by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Reliance was, however, placed on Articles 19 (1) (d) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which are quoted below ; "19 (1)-All citizens shall have the right- (a ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (c ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (d) to move freely throughout the territory of India. "21. No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. " It was contended that to make provision of security guards etc. , to protect the lives of the citizens of this country, in the event of danger or threat, was sovereign duty of the State. It was further contended that every citizen has got freedom to move freely throughout the territory of India and has also got the right to life and personal liberty. Petitioners contended that there still existed danger and threat to their lives, therefore, respondents have no right to withdraw the security guards. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of their arguments also placed reliance upon the following cases : (i) Saheli A Women's Resources Centre and others v. Commissioner of Police Delhi Head Quarter and others, AIR 1990 (1) SCC 422. (ii) Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1579. (iii) Challa Ramkanda Reddy and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh by District Collector, Kurnool, AIR 1989 AP 235. (iv) M/s Inder Puri General Store and others v. another, AIR 1992 J and K 11. Union of India and (v) R. Gandhi and others v. Union of India and another, AIR 1980 Mad 205.