# Rakesh Dhar Tripathi v. The State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2013) 2 ILRA 613
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-02-21
- **Bench:** Sunil Ambwani, Manoj Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rakesh-dhar-tripathi-v-the-state-of-u-p-ors-42436
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art. 226- Petition
for 'Y' category security-petitioner happend
to be minister for higher education, P.W.D.
minister,
apart
from
several
political
activities-earlier
provided
'Y'
securitywithdraw by state government-argument
that
before
withdrawing
'Y'
security
opportunity
of
hearing
must-heldmisconceived-on threat of life two guards
and one shadow already provided-family
members possess so many fire arms
license-state meant for protection of all
cirizen-'Y' security having financial burden
of Rs. two lacs per month on public
exchequer can not be imposed-petition
dismissed.

Held: Para-12
We do not find any substance in the
contention of the counsel for the petitioner
that a person who has been given 'Y' class
security must be given an opportunity of
hearing before it was withdrawn, or that
before taking decision to withdraw the 'Y'
class security, the threat perception should
be assessed by the State Government.
Ordinarily every citizen, is entitled to
security, and for that purpose entire
security set up is established. Special
security is given on the threat perception
assessed by a high level committee on the
reports submitted by the concerned police
authorities.
The
petitioner
was
not
provided 'Y' class security cover, on
assessment of any such threat perception.

Case Law discussed:
2008 (1) ADJ 575 (DB)

## Text

2 All] Rakesh Dhar Tripathi Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
613

"24. For the aforementioned reasons,
the judgment of thee High Court is set
aside. The appeal is allowed with costs
and the appellant is directed to be
reinstated with full back wages. Counsel's
fee assessed at Rs. 25,000/-."

7. In view of the several judgments
mentioned above the court is of the
considered view that the petitioner was
illegally retired. He was working with
unblemished career. He was willing to
work but was denied to perform duties by
the opposite parties-State. He was fit to
work is also clear by the fact that when he
was allowed to join after six years he
performed his duties till his age of
superannuation. He was deprived of work
and consequent salary because of the
mistake of the department. Petitioner can
not be held responsible for the same. The
petitioner deserves to get the salary of the
period claimed i.e. from 1.10.1988 to
18.5.1994 on the scale which would have
been applicable to him had he been
continued in service, however, without
any interest. It is ordered accordingly.

8. Writ Petition is allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.02.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNIL AMBWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE MANOJ MISRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5037 Of 2012

Rakesh Dhar Tripathi ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Umesh Narain Sharma
Sri Shashi Nandan, Sri Vishnu Gupta
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India, Art. 226- Petition
for 'Y' category security-petitioner happend
to be minister for higher education, P.W.D.
minister,
apart
from
several
political
activities-earlier
provided
'Y'
securitywithdraw by state government-argument
that
before
withdrawing
'Y'
security
opportunity
of
hearing
must-heldmisconceived-on threat of life two guards
and one shadow already provided-family
members possess so many fire arms
license-state meant for protection of all
cirizen-'Y' security having financial burden
of Rs. two lacs per month on public
exchequer can not be imposed-petition
dismissed.

Held: Para-12
We do not find any substance in the
contention of the counsel for the petitioner
that a person who has been given 'Y' class
security must be given an opportunity of
hearing before it was withdrawn, or that
before taking decision to withdraw the 'Y'
class security, the threat perception should
be assessed by the State Government.
Ordinarily every citizen, is entitled to
security, and for that purpose entire
security set up is established. Special
security is given on the threat perception
assessed by a high level committee on the
reports submitted by the concerned police
authorities.
The
petitioner
was
not
provided 'Y' class security cover, on
assessment of any such threat perception.

Case Law discussed:
2008 (1) ADJ 575 (DB)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J.)

1. We have heard Sri Shashi Nandan,
Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Vishnu
Gupta for the petitioner. Sri V.K. Singh,
Additional Advocate General assisted by
learned standing counsel appears for the State
respondents.
614 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by
withdrawal of 'Y' Class security cover
provided to him by the State Government,
while he was serving in the Government
as Cabinet Minister. The security cover
provided to him on 3.2.2008, has been
withdrawn on 25.12.2011. He has prayed
for the following relief: -

"i) issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus commanding
respondents to provide 'Y' class security
cover to the petitioner

ii) issue any other writ, order or
direction to which the petitioner might be
found entitle in the facts and circumstances
of the case."

3. Sri Shashi Nandan submits that the
petitioner was President of Allahabad
University. He was thrice elected as Member
of Legislative Assembly, in the year 1985,
1989 and 1996 from Handia constituency in
District Allahabad. He has been Minister of
State for Higher Education in the cabinet
headed by Sri Mulayam Singh Yadav as
Chief Minister in the year 1990-91. He was
also State Minister for Higher Education and
also the State Minister for Public Works
Department during the period 1996-2002 in
the then Bhartiya Janta Party Government. He
was again elected as Member of Legislative
Assembly in 2007 from Handia constituency
of Allahabad District, and was Cabinet
Minister for Higher Education in the
Government formed by Bahujan Samaj Party,
till 24.12.2011. He is also member of various
educational, social and other organizations
and as such protection to the life of the
petitioner is necessary and essential for the
interest of the society at large, as well as for
the members of the family of the petitioner.

4. Sri Shashi Nandan has pointed to
the averments made in para nos. 4 to 8 of
the
writ
petition,
classifying
threat
perception, quoted as below.

"4. That Vijay Mishra M.L.A. from
Gyanpur is resident of village Khaptiha,
Block Saidabad, Tehsil and P.S. Handia
which is adjoining village to petitioner's
native village Chaur Badera, P.S. Handia,
Allahabad. Vijay Mishra, is considere as
Mafia Don having nexus with other Mafia
Dons. He is an accused in attempt to
murder Nand Gopal Gupta, Cabinet
Minister In Mayawati Government in
2010. He is also accused in the murder of
Sri Rameshwar Pandey the brother of
M.P., Bhadohi Sri Gorakh Nath Pandey.
He is facing criminal charges in heinous
crimes in about 62 criminal cases. Ram
Chandra Mishra alias Lal Saheb is brother
of aforesaid Vijay Mishra, who is a
dreaded criminal involved in a number of
heinous crimes and they have formed
gang of dreaded criminals. A list of case
in which Vijay Mishra is involved is
annexed herewith as Annexure No.1 to
this writ petition.

5. That murder of Dr. Dharni Dhar
Trpathi the real brother of the petitioner
was committed in 1980 and in that murder
case Vijay Mishra and others were named
as accused. The murder trial is still
pending against the above mentioned
Vijay Mishra.

During election of U.P. Legislative
Assembly in 1985 attack to kill the petitioner
was made and in that attack there were 30 to
40 marks of bullets on the vehicle in which
petitioner was traveling and on other vehicles
accompanying him and in the aforesaid
incident petitioner shadow was also injured.
The aforementioned attack was made by
Vijay Mishra and his brother and other
dreaded criminals of their gang. In the above
2 All] Rakesh Dhar Tripathi Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
615
attack
one
Ram
Sajiwan
who
was
accompanying the petitioner was shot dead
on the spot at Khaptiha polling centre and his
body was burnt by pouring petrol on the
body by Vijay Mishra and others.

Attempt to commit murder of the
petitioner was again made in 1988 and
2002.

A true copy of various reports
published in Hindi Daily News papers
giving details of crimes committed by
Vijay Mishra and others are collectively
annexed
herewith
and
marked
as
Annexure No.2 to this writ petition.

6. That on 24.2.2006 during election
of Block Pramuh attempt to kill the
petitioner's family members was made in
respect of which F.I.Rs was lodged
against aforementioned Vijay Mishra,
Ram Chandra Mishra alias Lal Saheb and
other persons of their gang. In the above
incident indiscriminate firing was made
on the vehicle of Narendra Kumar
Tripathi alias Munna Tripathi vehicle.
However by the grace of God none was
killed.

7. That the aforementioned Vijay
Mishra also gave contract to kill the
petitioner several time complaints were
made by the petitioner concern authority
and the Government from time to time.
True copies of some of complaints are
collectively
annexed
herewith
as
Annexure No.3 to this writ petition.

8. That there is serious threats to the
life of the petitioner and his family
members from aforementioned Vijay
Mishra, Ram Chandra Mishra alias Lal
Saheb and their associates dreaded
criminals."

5. Sri Shashi Nandan submits that the
petitioner
had
made
several
representations regarding threat to his life
and on which enquiries were made from
time to time by the Senior Superintendent
of Police, Allahabad, and it was reported
by
the
District
Level
Committee,
constituted as per Government Order
dated 25.4.2001, that there is serious,
threat to the life of the petitioner and his
family members. He was accordingly
given security since 1980. The security
was also provided at the residence of the
petitioner at Allahabad, and that taking
into consideration the serious threat to the
life of the petitioner and his family
members, the Government provided 'Y
'Class security cover to the petitioner vide
order dated 13.2.2008.

6. It is submitted that the State
Government has arbitrarily, illegally and
all of sudden withdrawn the 'Y' class
security cover of the petitioner on
25.12.2011, on the day when he was
relieved as Cabinet Minister of the
Government of U.P. He submits that no
report was obtained to review threat
perception of the petitioner, and his
family members.

7. Sri V.K. Singh, learned Additional
Advocate General appearing for the State
respondents submits that the petitioner
has been provided security with one
shadow and two gunners. The petitioner,
and his family members are in possession
of several arm licences, which have been
detailed in para 16 of the counter affidavit
of
Sri
Ram
Jeet
Ram,
Deputy
Superintendent of Police (Intelligence),
Allahabad, as follows.

"16. That in reply to the contents of
para 15 of the writ petition it is submitted
616 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
that the order has been passed on
25.11.2011 and same is well in the
knowledge of the petitioner, however, he
has not annexed the same. It is further
stated that the following security and arm
licenses have been given to the petitioner
and his family members:-

1 Two Gunner/shadow on full
Government expenses.

(a) Petitioner possessed one rifle 315
Bore

(b) One revolver .32 Bore

2) Brother of the petitioner

(a) Rifle 315 Bore\

(b) DBBL Gun Bore

(c) Revolver .32 Bore

3) Real Nephew of the petitioner

(a) Rifle 315 Bore

(b) Revolver .32 Bore

The aforesaid security and arm license
fully covers the need of the petitioner
alleged by him."

8. Sri V.K. Singh, submits that the
petitioner in his representations, annexed
with the writ petition, dated 17.3.2002
and 21.3.2002, has always requested for
one gunner and two guards, to protect his
life. By his representation dated 25.4.2006
also, he has requested for saving his life
and family members from the persons,
who were enimical to him. In his
representation
dated
29.12.2011,
the
petitioner, after he ceased to be the
Cabinet Minister of the State, has again
referred to the old story of a murder in his
family in 1980, and an attempt on his life
in the years 1985 and 1988, as well as
attempt made on him during his assembly
elections in the year 2003, and has
requested for restoring 'Y' class security.

9. It is submitted on behalf of the
State that 'Z' plus or 'Z' category security
is
provided
only
by
the
Central
Government, and 'Y' class or 'X' class
security
is
provided
by
the
State
Government.
The
petitioner
was
designated as Cabinet Minister, as such he
was given 'Y' Class security considering
his status and business during the period
he was Minister. He submits that 'Y'
category security, costs rupees two lacs
per month to the public exchequer. Such
security cover is ordinarily given to
persons having serious threat perception
and also Cabinet Minister in the State
Government. Since the petitioner was no
longer Cabinet Minister, the 'Y' class
security was withdrawn, but two guards
and one shadow have been provided to
him from Government exchequer for his
security. That apart, various gun licences
have been issued to the petitioner, and his
family members. He further submits that
at present there is hardly any threat
perception to the petitioner, in view of the
fact that the person from whom threat to
life is claimed, is in jail since long, and is
lodged in district jail Meerut.

10. In Gayur Hasan Vs. State of U.P
and others [2008 (1) ADJ 575 (DB)], a
Division
Bench
of
the
Court
has
considered in detail the provisions and
security to the citizens of the country. The
Court found that acquiring facility of
gunner/security personnel, has become a
fashion, denoting status symbol. Just
because a person is elected as a
representative of people, and he cannot be
said to have threat perception to his life
from the people who have elected him
unless there is something more than than
that. A high level committee constituted
at district level, under the Government
Order dated 27.2.2007, has to consider
threat perception, on the representation
given by him, and in such case threat
2 All] Rakesh Dhar Tripathi Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
617
perception can be assessed and security be
either provided or rejected. In para 14 of
the judgment, the Court observed as
follows:-

14. Before parting, however, we find it
obligatory on our part to record our
dissatisfaction and anguish on the system of
providing gunners/security personnels to
individuals in the manner it has been
implemented while the entire State is
reeling under a very difficult law and order
situation, not of ordinary kind but of high
risk due to large scale terrorist and other
activists movement and operations. The
State is under a constitutional obligation to
provide adequate security to each and every
individual resident irrespective of his caste,
creed, religion, status, position etc. Life of
the most ordinary person is equally
important as that of a person holding a high
position in the State. We cannot treat
ordinary people like ginny pigs whose death
only results in number but it is a loss to the
nation.
Every
individual,
howsoever,
ordinary man he is, is an asset to the State. It
is the most pious and solemn obligation of
the State to take all possible steps to protect
him. The State must inspire and instil full
confidence in every individual that his life
and liberty is secured from all kinds of
scrupulous activities and he can enjoy his
constitutional right enshrined under Article
21 without any extra risk, fear etc. The
population of the State of U.P., when is
already exceeding 20 crores, the number of
people employed in security forces namely
Police Force is extremely inadequate. As we
are informed the entire police force in the
State of U.P., has less than 2 lacs of people.
Meaning thereby on every 1000 and more
persons only one police personnel is
available to take care of their security. In
such circumstances, if the State withdraw a
high number of security personnels for the
purpose of providing individual security
cover that would be like putting the
common and ordinary man at enhanced risk
to his life and liberty at the cost of
individual security. This can neither be
appreciated nor is consistent with the
constitutional scheme which treats every
individual equal so far as the question of his
life and liberty is concerned. Even a little
Indian, as said by Hon'ble Krishna Iyer, J is
entitled to be treated at par with the
mightiest one. The individual security may
be necessary in a very few exceptional cases
but it cannot be at the cost of collective
security of the common man."

11. In the present case on the request
of the petitioner and on the threat
perception, as it was assessed by the
State, the petitioner was provided security
with two security guards and one shadow.
He was not provided with 'Y' class
security before 31.3.2008, even when he
was Cabinet Minister in the previous
Governments of Samajwadi Party and
Bhartiya Janta Party. It is surprising as to
how the petitioner, in the present
constitutional democratic set up, is
manages to get berth in Cabinet in the
Government of all the parties. Be that as it
may, there is absolutely nothing to show
that the petitioner was given 'Y" class
security cover prior to 2008, on the
assessment of threat perception on his life
and on the life of his family members. For
that purpose he was already given security
of two guards and one shadow, on
Government expenses. The 'Y' class
security cover was given to him, as a
Cabinet Minister of the State. It was later
withdrawn just before he ceased to hold
the post.

12. We do not find any substance in
the contention of the counsel for the
618 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
petitioner that a person who has been given
'Y' class security must be given an
opportunity of hearing before it was
withdrawn, or that before taking decision to
withdraw the 'Y' class security, the threat
perception should be assessed by the State
Government. Ordinarily every citizen, is
entitled to security, and for that purpose
entire security set up is established. Special
security is given on the threat perception
assessed by a high level committee on the
reports submitted by the concerned police
authorities. The petitioner was not provided
'Y' class security cover, on assessment of any
such threat perception.

13. In the present case, the petitioner
has already been given sufficient security
and his family possesses a number of fire
arm licenses. The 'Y' class security
involves extra-ordinary financial burden
on the State Government. The State funds
collected by imposing taxes from citizens
of
the
State
are
meant
for
the
development and security of all the
citizens and are not the property of any
individual to be claimed as a matter of
right.

14. The writ petition is dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 02.04.2013.

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VISHNU CHANDRA GUPTA,
J.

Writ Petition No. 5777(M/S) Of 2012

Irfan

 ..Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Opp. Parties.

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vinod Kumar Singh
Counsel for the Respondents:
Govt. Advocate

Indian Forest Act, 1927- 52(A)-Release
of
vehicle-involved
in
Transporting
Sakhu, Sagon wood-without having valid
authority-vehicle driven by the owner of
vehicle
itself-rightly
confiscated-
no
interference call for-petition dismissed.

Held: Para-16
The above facts leave no room to doubt
that
petitioner
was
indulged
in
transporting the forest produce illegally
by means of a Mahendra Pickup vehicle
having registration no. UP 40 C 8561
which he at the time of seizure was
driving and is also the owner of the
same. Thus the same rightly confiscated.
The petition has no merit and deserves
to be dismissed.

Case Law discussed:
Criminal Revision No. 279 of 1994; 1990 Crl L
J; (2004) 4 SCC

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vishnu Chandra
Gupta,J)

1. This writ petition under Article 226
of the Constitution of Indian has been filed
by the petitioner claiming the reliefs to issue
a writ order or direction in the nature of
CERTIORARI to quash the impugned orders
dated 20.07.2012 passed by the opposite
party no. 2 and impugned confiscation order
dated 11.07.2011 passed by the opposite
party no.3. And further to issue, a writ order
or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the opposite party no. 3 to
release the vehicle in question.

2. The brief facts for deciding this writ
petition are that a vehicle Mahendra Pickup
having registration no. UP 40-C 8561 was
seized by the Forest Officials on 18.3.2011 .
This vehicle was loaded with cut wood of
'Sagoon' and 'Sakhu'. The Forester of