The High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking a mandatory order for the provision of a security guard at the State's expense, leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the District Level Committee.
Petitioner directed to approach District Level Committee with fresh representation.
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. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33309 of 2021
Petitioner :- Amresh Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
The petitioner has prayed for a mandamus commanding respondent nos. 2 and 3 to provide security guard to the petitioner at the expense of the State.
There is District Level Committee to consider such a request.
Accordingly, we leave it open to the petitioner to approach the District Level Committee with a fresh representation so that his prayer can be considered in accordance with law.
The petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 3.1.2022 Pratima
(Dr.Y.K.Srivastava,J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a mandamus commanding the State to provide a security guard.
Amresh Kumar Singh
State Of U.P.
Manoj Kumar Gupta
Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
