RAJAT KALSAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court challenging the decision of the respondentauthorities withdrawing the personal security from the petitioner with a further prayer seeking issuance of directions to official respondents to restore the security cover and to provide the same by preferably deploying the Central Para-Military Forces.

(2.) Briefly summarized the facts of the instant case are that the petitioner, who is an Advocate by profession and is based in Tehsil Hansi, District Hisar claims to be working on the issues of 'Dalit Rights' for several years. He claims to represent Dalit victims of atrocities across Courts in Haryana as well as before this Court. It is claimed that the petitioner has been recommended and awarded for his strenuous efforts by several social Organizations. It is also claimed that the petitioner has been counsel for the Dalit victims in Mirchpur incident and has been representing Dalit victim in various other high profile matters such as Dabra Gang Rape Case, Jind Bania Khera Dalit student rape and murder case, Bhatla case, Kulana murder/suicide case, Dolatpur matter, Bagla Dalit Murder matter as well as other 150 matters requiring him to travel throughout the State. A list of cases in which the petitioner claims to be representing such victims has been appended along with the writ petition as Annexure P-1.

(3.) It is also stated in the writ petition that as a result of the activism of the petitioner, he has been receiving threats and has also been attacked several times by the members of the dominant community in Haryana. He claims to have also been attacked in the Court Complex at Hisar by the miscreants of the dominant community. He also claims to have approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing IA No.11 of 2011 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.211 of 2010. The Govt. of Haryana had provided security to the petitioner along with other witnesses and a temporary police post was created outside his house. About six persons were deputed to guard the petitioner's house. Reference was made to an alleged incident of 2012 which was reported in the newspaper and another incident of 20/4/2014 in Sirsa where the petitioner claims to have been attacked and an FIR No.389 dtd. 21/4/2014 was registered under Ss. 324, 341, 506, 307, 34 IPC at Police Station Sirsa City. No FIR in relation to the alleged incident of 2012 or any other incident prior , however, is placed on record despite allegations. It is also stated that the petitioner had received threats from one Dilawar Singh on his social media account on Facebook qua which a representation was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Hisar on 2/8/2016, however, no action was taken. The representations were thereafter also submitted to the National Commission for the Schedules Castes, New Delhi. However, instead of investigating the same, the security cover provided to the petitioner was also withdrawn by the respondent-State. The petitioner has also alleged that on 18/9/2016, the petitioner was manhandled by C. Pawan Kumar, driver of PCR No.HR-57-2369 and the said issue was also raised with senior officials of the Police Department, however, no action was taken thereon. The petitioner also submitted a representation to the Superintendent of Police, Hisar on 22/9/2016 raising his grievances regarding withdrawal of the security cover and subjecting his family to an increased threat exposure and apprehension. He has alleged that after the withdrawal of the security cover, car of the petitioner was stolen and FIR No.710 dtd. 30/9/2016 was also registered in this regard. The petitioner also preferred CWP No.24244 of 2016 praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to provide security cover from the CRPF/CISF, wherein a specific response was filed by the State on 11/2/2017 taking a stand that there was no threat perception to the petitioner and therefore no security cover was required.