Petitioner challenged the withdrawal of a gunner provided for his security. High Court found no justification for continued security as threat perception had ceased and no fresh attack or injury was alleged. Writ petition dismissed.
Writ petition dismissed; security withdrawal upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 50
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9823 of 2020
Petitioner :- Shyam Prakash Dwivedi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Udai Chandani Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
Heard counsel for the petitioner; the learned standing counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 8; and perused the record.
The petitioner was earlier provided a Gunner for security as there were criminal cases registered at his behest. The said gunner was withdrawn and, thereafter, again provided, but later, again withdrawn on 23.5.2019.
Challenging the withdrawal of the gunner, the petitioner filed Writ C No. 27849 of 2019 which was disposed of by order dated 12.9.2019 giving liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Prayagraj ( in short SSP ) who, in turn, was required to consider and decide the same within a specified period.
It appears, pursuant to the direction, the District Level Committee examined the prayer of the petitioner and, on its recommendation, the SSP rejected the prayer upon finding that there was no threat perception to the life of the petitioner. Challenging the order of rejection, Writ C No. 39678 of 2019 was filed which was dismissed on the ground that alternative remedy was available, by way of appeal, before the State Level Security Committee.
Pursuant to the order passed in Writ C No. 39678 of 2019, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Level Security Committee.
By the impugned order dated 26.5.2020, the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected inasmuch as the State Level Security Committee did not find any cogent material to infer that there is threat to the life or body of the petitioner warranting grant of security.
Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once security is provided to the petitioner there ought to be cogent reason for its withdrawal inasmuch as grant of security by itself is an acceptance of existence of threat to the life of the person concerned.
We are not in agreement with the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner because threat perception must persist. With passage of time, threat perception may cease to exist. Even otherwise, from the perusal of the record, we do not find any complaint or case registered at the behest of the petitioner alleging that any attempt on his life was made or that he was attacked and in that attack he suffered any kind of injury. Under the circumstances, if the District Level Security Committee and the State Level Security Committee, after calling for the reports, have come to the conclusion that there is no threat perception to the life of the petitioner, there appears no justification to provide security to him.
Hence, no case for interference is made out.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 7.7.2020 samz
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the withdrawal of security personnel granted to a petitioner was lawful given the absence of subsequent threat perception.
Whether the State Level Security Committee's rejection of the appeal against the withdrawal of security was maintainable.
Whether cogent material exists to infer a threat to the life of the petitioner warranting continued security.
Shyam Prakash Dwivedi
State Of U.P.
Manoj Misra
Piyush Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
