LAWS(P&H)-2013-3-117

GURPREET SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On March 14, 2013
GURPREET SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a former Member of the Punjab Legislative Assembly who was elected as an independent candidate from Rampura Phul constituency by defeating the 4th respondent who is presently a Cabinet Minister in Punjab Government. The petitioner is said to have served as a Legislator from 2002 to 2007. He is aggrieved by the order dated 7.2.2013 (Annexure P-18) passed by the Inspector General of Police (Security), Punjab for the Additional Director General of Police (Security), Punjab, Chandigarh. The order has been passed pursuant to directions issued on 10.10.2012 by this Court in CWP No.20281 of 2012 to decide representation filed by the petitioner praying for beefing up his security. This Court had directed the respondent-State to consider and decide the representation within the period specified in the order.

(2.) THE impugned order records that the latest Threat Assessment Report in respect of the petitioner was sought from Field Units and as per those reports, there is no threat input indicating any threat to the petitioner and his family members from any terrorist, militant outfit or organized gang operating in the country or the State, which are the grounds and criteria for providing security as laid in the "Yellow Book" issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India for regulating security arrangements for protection of individuals. It has been found that one Personal Security Officer who is already deployed with the petitioner is sufficient for his security. The petitioner has arrayed a sitting Cabinet Minister as respondent no.5. He claims that he is under threat from him. He has mentioned 12 FIRs in the petition to assert that he and the Minister are at loggerheads. The petitioner, therefore, wants Commandoes armed with sophisticated automatic weapons to protect him and that the State should provide him with a bullet proof car as well and his Personal Security Officers should be armed with automatic AK47 assault weapons. He complains that earlier four security personnel were provided to him with AK47 rifles and three of them have been withdrawn without any rhyme or reason and without passing any order.

(3.) THE petitioner had earlier filed CWP No.563 of 2010 for beefing up his security and for providing a bullet proof vehicle over and above the four security personnel. This Court vide order dated 9.3.2011 granted liberty to the petitioner to make a representation highlighting additional facts and circumstances, if any, which might justify the expansion of security, already provided to him. In the event the representation was made, the Additional Director General of Police, Punjab was directed to consider the same objectively uninfluenced by the previous decisions taken in the matter. The order of the learned Single Judge was passed two years ago. The petition was brought for the same reason that he is under threat of 5th respondent who belongs to the political party in power.