# Abhishek Tiwari v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 8 ILRA 331
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-11-09
- **Case number:** Misc. Bench No. 10867 of 2021
- **Bench:** Ritu Raj Awasthi, Dinesh Kumar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/abhishek-tiwari-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47189
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

332 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
C.S.C.

Order
refusing
personal
security
on
recommendation of Security Committee -
challenged-report suggest no threat to
Petitioner-Writ Court cannot substitute its
decision to the decision of a competent
authority-personal enmity would not be a
parameter of assesing threat.

W.P. dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

8 All. Abhishek Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
331
the land in question was agricultural land
on which a declaration was sought of
ownership, the Suit was found by the
Learned trial court to be barred under the
provisions of the Act of 1950. I do not find
any legal or factual infirmity in the order
dated 4.7.2013.

26. The District Judge besides
mentioning the merits of the petitioners
contention regarding the applicability of the
Act of 1930 vis-a-vis the Act of 1950,
additionally found that the Revision had
been dismissed by a Court of coordinate
jurisdiction and the court of District Judge
would not sit as appellate court over an
order passed in Revision by the Court of
Additional District Judge. The question of
jurisdiction was a pure question of law and
it makes no difference whether the
impugned order was assailed in Appeal or
Revision. No evidence was to be led, no
questions of fact were to be considered.
The Additional District Judge in Revision
had found that the Suit was filed for
declaration and injunction and it was
prayed that the name of the defendant be
removed from the revenue records over
plot no. 25 in village Aadhar Khera and the
name of the plaintiff be recorded therein as
Sankramaniya
Bhoomidhar.
Additional
District Judge had also noted the argument
raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the property had been
acquired by his father, and therefore the
Act
of
1930
would
be
applicable
consequently the provisions of the Act of
1950 are not applicable, but had rejected
the argument on the ground that the Act of
1950 is a Special Act which has overriding
effect over personal law. The petitioner in
fact was seeking a declaration of his right
title under Section 229B of the Act of 1950
such declaration of title over agricultural
land can only be granted by the revenue
court as there was a bar under Section 331
of the Act. Even in respect of partition of
agricultural land there is a specific
provision under Section 176 of the Act.

27. The District Judge in his order
dated 09.11.2020 has observed that original
jurisdiction is also part of Appellate
jurisdiction and is exercised by the same
court upon which Revisional jurisdiction is
conferred. The District Judge also observed
that there was no question of fact that was
needed to be determined in the Appeal filed
before him, only a question of law relating
to jurisdiction of the civil court was
involved in the Appeal. The Revisional
court had already considered this question
of law and being a court of Coordinate
jurisdiction the District Judge could not sit
in Appeal over such view expressed
regarding lack of jurisdiction. I do not find
any infirmity in such observations of the
District Judge.

28. The petition is dismissed as
devoid of merit. No Order as to costs.
----------
(2021)08ILR A331
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RITU RAJ AWASTHI, J.
THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

Misc. Bench No. 10867 of 2021

Abhishek Tiwari ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Anand Mani Tripathi, Himanshu Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
332 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
C.S.C.

Order
refusing
personal
security
on
recommendation of Security Committee -
challenged-report suggest no threat to
Petitioner-Writ Court cannot substitute its
decision to the decision of a competent
authority-personal enmity would not be a
parameter of assesing threat.

W.P. dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. M.A. Khan Chaman Vs St. of U.P., 2004 SCC Online
All 373

2. Hazi Rais Vs St. of U.P.& ors., 2006 SCC OnLine All
621

3.Randeep Singh Surjewala Vs U.O.I. & ors., CWP
No.13266 of 2016

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)

1. The present petition under Article 226
of the Constitution of India has been filed by the
petitioner, impugning the order dated 27th
April, 2021, wherein the decision of the High
Level Committee dated 16th April, 2021
regarding refusal to provide the petitioner
personal security was communicated to the
Commissioner of Police, Lucknow and vide
communication dated 5th May, 2021 the said
decision was communicated to the petitioner.

The petitioner claims to be a
practicing
lawyer
of
District
Lucknow,
conducting mostly criminals as well as public
interest litigation cases. It is stated that due to
nature of work being performed by the
petitioner, he receives continuous threats to his
life and property.

2. Initially, the petitioner submitted a
representation dated 19th December, 2020 to
the Additional Chief Secretary, Home, for
providing him personal security. A report,
regarding threat perception to the petitioner,
was called upon from the Commissionerate
Security
Committee,
Lucknow
for
consideration by the State Level Security
Committee. The Joint Secretary, Home, on the
basis
of
the
recommendation
of
the
Commissionerate
Security
Committee,
Lucknow vide letter dated 19th December,
2020, ordered for providing one gunner on
State expenses as personal security to the
petitioner as an interim measure in anticipation
of decision taken by the State Level Security
Committee.

3. The aforesaid decision dated 19th
December, 2020 for providing personal security
to the petitioner, as an interim measure, for six
months,
provided
that
the
report/recommendation in the prescribed format
should be provided by the Commissionerate
Security Committee, Lucknow regarding real
threat perception to life of the petitioner for
consideration by the State Level Security
Committee. The Commissionerate Security
Committee, Lucknow, after two months i.e. on
13th February, 2021 re-assessed the threat
perception to life of the petitioner in light of
Government Orders dated 9th May, 2014 and
10th July, 2020 and, it was found that there was
no threat perception to life of the petitioner. The
report/recommendation was submitted to the
State Government on the aforesaid subject
matter.

4.

The
State
Level
Security
Committee, in its meeting dated 17th
February, 2021, considered the case of the
petitioner along with others and, took
decision to continue with the interim
security provided to the petitioner for six
months vide letter dated 19th December,
2020. However, from perusal of the
decision taken in the meeting dated 17th
February, 2021, it appears that the
8 All. Abhishek Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
333
report/recommendation
of
the
Commissionerate
Security
Committee,
Lucknow dated 13th February, 2021 was
not taken into consideration and, the
decision was purely based on the letter
dated 19th December, 2020 issued by the
Joint Secretary, Government of Uttar
Pradesh.
In
pursuance
of
the
recommendation dated 17th February,
2021, consequential order dated 12th
March, 2021 was issued by the State
Government, extending personal security of
one police personnel for six months to the
petitioner.
The
State
Level
Security
Committee, in its meeting dated 16th April,
2021, considered the recommendations of
the several District Level Committees as
well as the recommendations of the
Commissionerate
Security
Committee,
Lucknow and, threat perception of 188
citizens
residing
in
the
State
was
considered by the High Level Committee.
The petitioner?s name finds place at serial
no. 102.

5. This Court, vide order dated 22nd
July,
2021
requisitioned
the
recommendation/decision
of
the
High
Level
Committee
for
providing/not
providing personal security to persons,
whose cases were considered on the basis
of
the
recommendation
of
the
District/Divisional
Level
Security
Committees.

6. In respect of the petitioner, his
profession is mentioned as Advocate,
Allahabad High Court, Lucknow and, his
yearly income is Rs. 4,50,000/-. It is
mentioned in the minutes of the meeting
that Commissionerate Security Committee,
Lucknow in its report dated 12th March,
2021 stated that the ground on which the
petitioner requested for providing him
security was that he had been appearing in
several public interest litigation of general
public importance and, he had to travel to
the naxalite and dacoit affected areas for
legal/judicial work and, for that purpose,
there is persistent threat to his life.
However,
the
Commissionerate
Level
Security Committee stated that there was
no threat perception to the petitioner by a
particular person or he was having any
enmity with any particular person. He had
not lodged any FIR or complaint against
any particular person, threatening him of
his life and property in District Lucknow
and, there was no real threat to him as such.
In view of the aforesaid, it has been stated
that there is no reasonable basis for
continuing
with
the
interim
security
provided to the petitioner and, in view
thereof the decision has been taken by the
State Level Security Committee not to
extend him security.

7. The petitioner did not disclose
correct facts in the writ petition, as mentioned
in paragraph-5 of the counter affidavit filed
on behalf of the State authorities. It is stated
that the petitioner was granted security by the
State Government for six months at the
expense of 10% vide order dated 23th
November, 2020 on an application processed
from District Jaunpur, which got expired on
13th May, 2021. Subsequently, the district
administration of Jaunpur had extended the
security granted to the petitioner till 15th
June, 2021 and, in the meantime, the matter
had been referred to the Divisional Level
Security Committee for consideration for
granting him security in the light of the
Government Order dated 9th May, 2014. The
petitioner was asked to deposit 10% expenses
for one month vide letter dated 6th May,
2021.

8. In paragraph-15 of the rejoinder
affidavit filed by the petitioner, he admitted
334 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the facts, stated in paragraph-5 of the
counter affidavit. However, it was said that
the present dispute was not in respect of the
security
provided
by
the
District
Administration, Jaunpur, but the dispute
related to the security provided to the
petitioner from District Lucknow.

9. Heard Mr. A.M. Tripathi, learned
counsel for the petitioner, as well as Mr.
Amitabh Rai, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel, for respondents-State.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that the petitioner was
provided security vide order dated 19th
December 2020 for a period of six months
and, the same was extended for further
period of six months vide decision dated
17th February, 2021. However, when the
order was still in operation for providing
security for six months, in a mala fide
manner, the Commissionerate Security
Committee,
Lucknow
vide
its
recommendation dated 12th March, 2021
recommended
for
withdrawal
of
the
security and, on the basis of the said
recommendation, the State Level Security
Committee has passed the impugned order,
withdrawing the Security cover from the
petitioner. It is further stated that the said
decision is arbitrary, illegal as well as mala
fide. It is also submitted that the petitioner
has been pursuing criminal and public
interest litigation cases against the State,
therefore, in a mala fide manner the
security cover has been withdrawn from
him.

11. When the Court asked whether
any FIR or police complaint has ever been
given by the petitioner of receiving any
threat to his life or property, he fairly
conceded that no such police complaint or
FIR has been registered by him. However,
it has further been stated that the impugned
order dated 27th April, 2021 suffers from
arbitrariness and is liable to be quashed
and, the Government may be directed to
provide security to the petitioner.

12. On the other hand, Mr. Amitabh
Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel for the State, submits that this
Court in Writ Petition No.6509 (M/B) of
2013 (PIL) ?Dr. Nutan Thakur Vs. State of
U.P. and others? vide interim order dated
2nd December, 2013 directed the State
Government to formulate a policy for
providing security to private persons and in
pursuance of the said interim order of this
Court, the Government took a policy
decision for providing personal security to
private persons and VIPs. The said policy
decision dated 9th December, 2014 has
been placed on record as Annexure CA-3 to
the counter affidavit.

13. According to the said policy
decision, every person or a VIP seeking
personal
security
has
to
make
an
application in a prescribed format to the
District Magistrate/Senior Superintendent
of Police. Threat perception to the life of
such person shall be assessed by the
District/Divisional
Level
Security
Committee. The District Level Committee
would consist of District Magistrate/Senior
Superintendent of Police of the District and
In-charge of the District Local Intelligence
Unit. If the District Level Committee finds
real threat perception to life of such person,
who has made application, such a person
shall be provided personal security for one
month at the district level which may be
extended for two terms of one month each.
After three months, if the District Level
Committee considers that such person
requires security for further period then, it
would submit its report regarding threat
8 All. Abhishek Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
335
perception of such person to his life to the
Divisional
Level
Security
Committee,
consisting of Divisional Commissioner,
Deputy Inspector General of Police, and
Superintendent of Police, District Local
Intelligence
Unit.
If
the
Divisional
Committee, on consideration of the report
submitted by the District Level Committee,
agrees with the report of the District Level
Committee then, it can extend security for
another term of three months. After expiry
of six months, Divisional Level Committee
would consider the threat perception of the
said person and, if it considers that the
person requires security, considering his
threat perception, it would place its
recommendation before the State Level
Committee at the High Level consisting of
Principal
Secretary,
Home,
Director
General of Police and Additional Director
General of Police (Security). The High
Level Committee at State Level, if
considers threat perception to the person,
can grant the security cover for six months
at one time and, thereafter again the
District
Level
and
Divisional
Level
Committee?s recommendations should be
called for assessing threat perception of
such person.

14. Vide Government Order dated
10th July, 2020, further directions have
been issued in respect of providing
personal security to a person on the basis of
threat perception in continuation of the
order dated 9th May, 2014. It is, therefore,
submitted
that
earlier
decision
for
providing six months security to the
petitioner was an interim decision and, on
every six months, on the basis of threat
perception of a person, decision for
providing/not providing security is taken.
In
case
of
the
petitioner,
the
Commissionerate
Level
Security
Committee has specifically recommended
that there is no real threat to the petitioner
and, the High Level Security Committee at
the State Level has concurred with the
recommendation of the Commissionerate
Level Security Committee and, therefore,
decision has been taken not to extend
security cover to the petitioner.

15. It has been further submitted that
the petitioner has approached this Court
with unclean hands, concealing the material
facts of having one security personnel from
the District Administration, Jaunpur and
this fact has not been denied by him in his
rejoinder affidavit. It has been further
submitted that if the petitioner?s contention
is accepted then every Advocate, practicing
on criminal-side, would be required to be
given personal security. It is said that there
is no real threat perception to the petitioner
and, his demand for personal security is for
mere status symbol to have security to
flaunt his status as VIP in the society. It has
been further submitted that the writ petition
lacks any merit and substance and, is liable
to be dismissed as such.

16. A large number of private persons
are being provided personal security. Many
would consider it a wastage of tax-payers'
money. To a parliamentary question,
Minister of State (Home) replied that
security for the President, Vice-President
and the Prime Minister was provided
according to the 'Blue Book'. Though not
stated in so many words, it was clear from
the context that the security was given exofficio, that is, by virtue of the offices they
held. It was told that Union Ministers, State
Chief Ministers and Judges of the Supreme
Court and High Courts were provided
positional/statutory
security
cover
to
facilitate
impartial
decision-making
process. The security arrangements for
other political personalities were made after
336 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
careful assessment of the threats emanating
from
terrorists/militants/fundamentalists
outfits and organized criminal gangs, and
that the mechanics of security arrangements
was prescribed in the ?Yellow Book?. The
degree of threat varies from individual to
individual, depending on factors such as the
nature of activities, status, and likely gains
for
the
terrorists,
etc.
Accordingly,
categorized security cover (Z+, Z, Y & X)
is provided to them on the basis of gravity
of the threat. Thus, threat perception is
assessed on the basis of threats emanating
from
various
terrorists,
militants,
fundamentalists
outfits
and
organized
criminal gangs for some work done by the
protectees in their public life and, in
national interest.

17. A person or political personality
cannot claim security on the ground that he
faces threats from his enemies because of
some private dispute with them. There
could not be any dispute about security for
the President, Vice-President and Prime
Minister, or Union Ministers, State Chief
Ministers and Judges of the Supreme Court
and High Courts, because they represent
the core functioning and authority of the
Indian State. There would be other political
personalities, who hold public office and
might
have
real
threat
from
the
terrorists/militants/fundamentalists
outfits
and organized criminal gangs for the work
done or being done in the interest of nation
by
such
political
personality.
These
persons, on the basis of real threat
perception, can claim security at state
expense and, if they were to be harmed by
such elements, it would affect the prestige
of the government and authority of the
State and, it would adversely create an
impression in the minds of the people that
if, the government cannot protect high
dignitaries and, the people who work for
nation and society, how would it ever
protect the common men and, this would
lead to the insecurity in the minds of the
public in general and diminish the State
Authority. It would also make an impact on
the decision making process impartially or
boldly in detriment to the public and
national interest.

18. In a country governed by the rule
of law and democratic polity, a class of
privileged persons should not be created by
the State. India got its written Constitution
in 1950 and, as per the preamble, the goal
of the Indian Democratic Republic is to
secure justice to all citizens (socially and
economically and politically) liberty of
thought, expression etc. and equality of
status and of opportunity. The State cannot
be seen as creating a privileged class in the
society as it would amount abdication of
the very principle of justice and equality
enshrined
in
the
preamble
of
the
Constitution. There may be cases where
public interest demand to provide personal
security but same should be done in a
transparent and fair manner and, the State
should be able to justify its decision if the
same is challenged in the Court of law.

19. In the case of M.A. Khan
Chaman Vs. State of U.P., 2004 SCC
Online All 373, it was said that the
petitioner, M.A. Khan Chaman was not
having a right to enjoy the privilege of
security ad infinitum. The Court noted that
on flimsily grounds people exercise undue
influence and manage to secure gunners
and security at State expenses and at
taxpayers cost. In fact acquisition of a
gunner has begun to be treated as a status
symbol. This practice must be brought to
an end. It has been further held that the
security can be provided to an individual
provided it is needed in fact and there is a
8 All. Abhishek Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
337
threat perception to the life of the applicant
or any of his family members.

20. Case of providing security should
be decided objectively by the authority taking
into account all relevant factors and security
should not be provided merely to enhance the
status of the applicant. The competent
Authority would be required to review the
threat perception from time to time. Whether
the applicant would be required to pay the
expenses of the gunner or not would depend
upon the recommendation of the Reviewing/
Assessing Authority.

21. A person is entitled to get security
as per the Government Order/policy if he
comes within the parameters based upon the
real threat perception. In the present case, no
specific instance has been mentioned on the
basis of which it can be assumed that the
petitioner has any threat to his life or to any
other member of his family. In paragraph-15
of the said judgment, this Court summarized
the law that the security cannot be provided
to a person unless it is needed in fact, based
on real grave threat to his life.

22. This Court in the case of Hazi Rais
Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2006 SCC
OnLine All 621, it was observed that
undoubtedly, need to provide security to
every individual/citizen by the State is
imperative. The State is under obligation to
protect the life, liberty and property of its
citizens and any apathy in the matter is to be
ridiculed. This Court also noted the unhappy
reality that the demand for security was not as
much for the personal security but had
ripened into a status symbol. It is enjoyed not
as cathedral but as casino and, therefore, it
would be duty of the high powered
committed
to
review
the
security
arrangements in a most objective, bona fide
and honest manner.

23. The Madras High Court in the case
of N. Jothi Vs. The Home Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu (2006) in a case
of a Member of Rajya Sabha from Tamil
Nadu when 'Y' skills of security provided to
him was withdrawn on the basis of threat
perception assessed by the State Level
Security Committee held that the High Court
is not expected to sit in appeal over the
decision taken by the High Level Committee
and, decide to what level security a person
should enjoy. Whether there is a threat
perception to the applicant or not is to be
decided by the Security Committee and, these
are the questions to be left to the decision
making process of the authorities constituted
for this purpose.

24. The Supreme Court in the case of
Abhay Singh Vs. State of U.P. (2013) 15
SCC 435, in an appeal from the judgment and
order of this Court in the case of Pramod
Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. 2009 SCC Online
All
2107
wherein
the
decision
of
withdrawing 'Z' skill security arrangement in
favour of the petitioner was quashed by this
Court and, the State Government was
directed to consider the claim of the petitioner
for providing 'Z' category security to him and
family members, considered three questions
which are as under:-

?1. Whether the use of beacons,
red lights and sirens by persons other than
high constitutional functionaries is lawful
and constitutional?

2. Whether
the
provision
of
security
to
persons
other
than
the
constitutional
functionaries
without
corresponding
increase
in
sanctioned
strength and without a specific assessment of
threat is lawful and constitutional?

3. Whether the closure of roads
for facilitating movement of VIPs is lawful
and constitutional??
338 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

25. In paragraphs-20 and 21 of Abhay
Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others (supra),
it was observed as under:-

"20.
When
we
achieved
Independence in 1947, India was a baby
aiming to grow to become one of the
respected
members
of
the
world
community. The leaders of Independence
movement undertook an onerous task of
framing the Constitution for the country.
They studied the Constitutions of various
countries and adopted their best provisions
for creating an egalitarian society with the
aim of ensuring justice?social, economic
and political, various types of freedoms,
equality of opportunity and of status and
ensuring dignity of every individual.

21. During the drafting of the
Constitution, the preliminary notes on the
fundamental
rights
issued
by
the
Constitutional
Advisor,
B.N.
Rau,
specifically dealt with the issue of equality
using examples from various Constitutions
to emphasise its importance. One of the
issues highlighted in the note was that if the
instinct of power is concentrated in few
individuals then naked greed for power will
destroy the basics of democratic principles.
But, what we have done in the last four
decades would shock the most established
political systems. The best political and
executive practices have been distorted to
such an extent that they do not even look
like distant cousins of their original forms.
The best example of this is the use of
symbols of authority including the red
lights
on
the
vehicles
of
public
representatives from the lowest to the
highest and civil servants of various
cadres. The red lights symbolise power and
a stark differentiation between those who
are allowed to use it and the ones who are
not. A large number of those using vehicles
with red lights have no respect for the laws
of the country and they treat the ordinary
citizens with contempt. The use of red lights
on the vehicles of public representatives
and civil servants has perhaps no parallel
in the world democracies."

26. It would be apt to extract
paragraph-6 of the judgment rendered by
the Supreme Court in the case of Ramveer
Upadhyay Vs. R.M. Srivastava and others,
(2015) 13 SCC 370:-

"6. However, in our experience,
we have hardly seen any security of ?Z? or
?Y? category provided to any ordinary
citizen,
howsoever
grave
the
threat
perception or imminent danger may be to
the person concerned. The petitioner,
however, has claimed it obviously as a
?privileged class? by virtue of being an exMinister which at times, may be justified
even to an ex-Minister or any other
dignitary, considering the nature and
function of the duties which he had
discharged, which could facilitate the
assessment of his threat perception even
after laying down the office. But what
exactly is his threat perception and whether
the same is grave in nature, obviously will
have to be left to be decided by the
authorities including the authorities of the
State or the Centre which may include even
the Intelligence Bureau or any other
authority concerned which is entitled to
assess
the
threat
perception
of
an
individual. But insofar as the court of law
is concerned, it would obviously be in a
predicament to come to any conclusion as
to whether the threat perception alleged by
a person claiming security is grave or
otherwise which would hold him entitled to
the security of a greater degree, since this
is clearly a question of factual nature to be
dealt with by the authorities entrusted with
the duty to provide security after assessing
8 All. Abhishek Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
339
the need and genuineness of the threat to
any individual."

27. In the case of Ramveer Upadhyay
Vs. R.M. Srivastava and others (supra) ?Z?
category security of a Minister in the State
of Uttar Pradesh had been downgraded
after he ceased to be the Minister. The
Supreme
Court
also
observed
that
irrespective of a reference to ordinary
citizens in the 'Yellow Book', they hardly
ever got such security irrespective of the
threat perception or imminent danger. A
society governed by rule of law does not
make any difference between the Minister
or ordinary person and under Article 21
both are the same.

28. As per a report, 2,556 MLAs and
MPs from 22 States are accused in various
cases. If former MPs and MLAs from these
States are included, the number rises to
4,442. Only convicted persons have been
barred from contesting elections for six
years. The Supreme Court has ordered
political parties to publish the entire
criminal history of their candidates for
Assembly and Lok Sabha elections along
with reasons that goaded them to field
suspected criminals over decent people, but
not barred them. Thus, the political
personalities with criminal cases against
them could theoretically be provided with
security.

29. As a matter of principle, private
individuals should not be given security at
State cost unless there are compelling
transparent reasons, which warrant such
protection, especially if the threat is linked
to some public or national service they
have rendered and, the security should be
granted to such persons until the threat
abates. But, if the threat perception is not
real, it would not be proper for the
Government to grant security at the cost of
taxpayers money and to create a privileged
class. In a democratic country governed by
rule of law and written Constitution
providing security at State expense ought
not to become an act of patronage to create
a coterie of ?obliged? and ?loyal? persons.
The limited public resources must be used
carefully for welfare schemes and not in
creating a privileged class. From a report of
Bureau
of
Police
Research
and
Development (BPR&D), police think tank
of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA),
more than 20,000 additional policemen
than the sanctioned strength were deployed
in VIP protection duty in the year 2019. As
per
the
report,
Data
on
Police
Organizations, 2019, as many as 66,043
policemen were deployed to protect 19,467
Ministers, Members of Parliament, Judges,
Bureaucrats and other personalities and,
thus number is growing up in every year.

30. In the case of Rajinder Saini Vs.
State of Punjab and others, C.W.P.
No.19453 of 2015, relying upon the
judgment in the case of Ramveer Upadhyay
Vs. R.M. Srivastava and others (supra), it
was observed that the politicians and
holders of party offices just to show their
might were seeking security and, the same
could not be provided merely on asking. If
there is actual threat then only concerned
authority can consider the case and make
recommendation to the Government at their
own level for providing security. The Court
cannot determine as to whether the
petitioner has any threat perception and
required security urgently.

31. In the case of Randeep Singh
Surjewala Vs. Union of India and others,
CWP No.13266 of 2016, the Punjab and
Haryana High Court denied inclusion of
Surjewala?s
name
as
a
categorized
340 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
protectee in the Central list in Delhi as
there was no specific input regarding threat
perception to him, either from any terrorist,
militant, outfit or fundamentalist groups.

32. This Court, while exercising writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, cannot substitute its
decision to the decision of the competent
Authority in respect of threat perception of
the petitioner to his life and property. From
the facts as emanate from the record, it is
evident that the petitioner does not face any
real threat to his life or property. He has
been asking for security as authority of
symbol to flaunt his status a VIP. This
practice, creating a privileged class on State
expense and taxpayers money, is to be
deprecated. It is, therefore, provided that
the threat perception has to be real and the
Security Committee has to assess the threat
perception, taking into consideration the
reports
from
Intelligence
Unit,
the
concerned police station and past record of
the applicant. The security should be
provided only to those who face real threat
to their life for having done some work in
the interest of the society or the nation from
terrorist/naxalite or organized gangs and
not otherwise. A personal enmity with
other
would
not
come
within
the
parameters
for
assessing
the
threat
perception of the applicant for providing
him security.

33. In view of the aforesaid
discussions, we find that the present writ
petition lacks merit. It is dismissed
accordingly. Interim order, if any, stands
vacated.

34. Let a copy of this judgment be
sent to the Chief Secretary of the
Government of Uttar Pradesh, Principal
Secretary/Additional
Chief
Secretary,
Department of Home, State of Uttar
Pradesh and Director General of Police,
Uttar Pradesh for its compliance and taking
decision,
accordingly,
for
providing
security to an individual.
----------

(2021)08ILR A340
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Misc. Bench No. 11051 of 2021

Neelam Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Shobhit Mohan Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Atul Kumar Dwivedi, Rohit Tripathi

Election
result
declared-Petitioner
submitted
an
application
before
A.R.O./R.O. - non application of mind by
the
officer-discretionary
jurisdiction
under Article 226 cannot be interferedas it has effect of compromising the
fairness and sanctity of election process.

W.P. dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Smt. Ram Kanti Vs D.M., Hamirpur & ors,
1995 (2) U.P.L.B.E.C. 771

2. Sunita Patel Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No. 29629 of 2000),2006(1)
U.P.L.B.E.C. 372

3. Pancham & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors, Writ
Petition No. 5562 (MB) of 2005