PREMA DEVI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prema Devi wife of Om Prakash is before this Court, assailing the validity of the decision dated 28th April, 2015 passed by the High Level Committee and communicated under the signatures of Deputy Secretary, Uttar Pradesh on 6th May 2015, wherein a resolve in question has been taken not to provide security cover to the petitioner at the expense of State exchequer.

(2.) Brief background of the case as is reflected from pleadings that has come forward is that a criminal case in question has been got registered bearing Case Crime No. 89 of 2013 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 427, 504, 506, 352, 354, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC, Police Station- Shivpur, District- Varanasi by the petitioner complaining therein that she has been subjected to criminal activity and further she has also given details of the incumbents behind the said crime in question who are no one else but near and dear of one renowned 'Mafia Don' of the eastern region of the State of UP.

(3.) This is also reflected in the present case that in consonance with the Government Order dated 9th May, 2014 looking to threat perception in question, security cover had been provided to the petitioner at both the level is the District Level Committee and as well as Division Level Security Committee. Both District Level Committee and Divisional Level Committee, can provide security cover for limited period. Maximum period for which security cover can be provided is three months each, and thereafter, in further security is to be provided then ultimate call in the said direction is required to be taken by the State Level Committee and accordingly in regard to extension of facility of security cover to the petitioner, a recommendation in question has been made by the local officials as well as the higher officials and at the point of time when the matter has been taken by the State Level Committee, in its meeting a resolve has been taken that there is no real threat perception to her life as such resolve is being taken not to provide security cover to the petitioner, this decision has impelled the petitioner to be before us.