NATTHI SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M. Katju and Dr. B. S. Chauhan, JJ. The instant petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents to pro vide armed guard to the petitioner. For the same cause the petitioner had earlier filed writ petition No. 27081 of 1995, which was disposed of finally with a direction to the respondents, vide order dated 22-9-1995, contained in Annexure-3 to the writ peti tion. The filing of second or successive writ petition is barred by Chapter XII, Rule 7 of the Allahabad High Court, 1952. This issue was dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court reported in Saheb Lal v. Assis tant Registrar (Administration), Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi and others, 1995 (1) UPLBEC 31 and also in I. S. Tripathi v. B. H. U. , 1993 (1) UPLBEC 448, wherein it has been held that filing of successive writ petitions on the same facts and grounds is against the public policy and also amounts to abuse of process of Court.

(2.) THE petition is not maintainable and is dismissed. However, as the prayer in the instant petition is only for directing the authority to provide a security guard to the petitioner, it may be mentioned that it is not possible for this Court to issue such a direction. Though it is a serious matter and it is the duty of the State to protect the citizens of the country, however, this Court cannot afford to provide armed guards in a cavilier fashion. In the modern times a large number of private agencies have started the business of providing security guards and the petitioner may also approach such an agency. Petition dismissed. .