RAM ASRAY SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by a retired Police Officer who was Deputy Superintendent of Police, for providing security to his person. The petitioner's case is that during his tenure as Police Officer he has terminated and apprehended many anti-social elements and several cases are pending against these persons who were terror in the Society. The petitioner retired on 31st December, 1994 and looking to the threat perception, the State Government provided security of one Gunner at the cost of the State in November, 1996. THIS security has con tinued from time to time but the same has been withdrawn by means of an order dated 26th June 1999 which is contained in Annexure-1. The petitioner has moved an application for providing security cover as provided earlier. The application is dated 1-6-1999 contained in Annexure-12 to the writ petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has on the one hand prayed for continuance of security cover but the State Government has withdrawn the security by means of order dated 26th June, 1999 without con sidering his application for providing security and without assigning any reason. Further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the threat percep tion still exists and it is difficult for the petitioner to pass his life peacefully as there is consistent apprehension and danger to his life.

(2.) THE question regarding grant of security lies within the domain of the State Government and this Court is not in a position to order for providing security to any person. It has been held in several cases decided by this Court that the petitioner should approach the State Government. THE State Government shall decide the question regarding grant of security after taking into consideration the threat perception and after satisfying whether the security is needed to the per son concerned or not. However, the Court can, in imminent situation or in extra-ordi nary exceptional cases, exercise its discre tion to provide security. In the instant case the petitioner has given an application in the month of June, 1999 for the grant of security cover and it appears that while withdrawing the security the said applica tion has not been taken into consideration nor any reason has been given in the order.