GAYUR HASAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Advocate General and the learned Government Advocate.

(2.) LEARNED Advocate General states that there has been full compliance of our order dated 20-2-2007 whereby we have directed that the Gunners provided to 575 persons in two categories which include 331 persons in whose cases security had not been recommended by the District Committee and 244 persons whose files were in movement for withdrawal have been withdrawn. However, we find some ambiguity in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the affidavit dated 26-2-2007 filed by Kamal Saxena, Special Secretary, Home, Government of U. P. , (hereinafter referred to as the affidavit), who is present in Court as to whether only orders for withdrawing security of the said persons have been passed or whether security has actually been withdrawn from them. We require a better affidavit specifying that security has actually been withdrawn from the said persons and the dates of withdrawal of security from them, on the next date of listing.

(3.) A list has been provided at Annexure-12, which shows that 674 persons have been provided security, not on the recommendation of the District Committee and consequential orders of the State Government, but they have been provided security by extraneous orders passed at the level of the SSP/sp or from some other level (which level has not been specified or identified in the affidavit ). There seems to be no justification for continuing security to such categories of persons who have been provided security at the instance of extraneous sources which is not in accordance with the Government Order dated 25-4-2001.