The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking a directed security guard for the petitioners. The court held that the State has a mechanism for security provision under a 2014 Government Order requiring actual threat perception. The petitioner was left to file an application with the District Level Committee.
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. - 38262 of 2022
Petitioner :- Rajendra Yadav And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. and 3 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
7.With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is accordingly disposed of .
Order Date :- 10.2.2023 Jaswant
Digitally signed by :- JASWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has a right to a security guard based on their representation dated 29.10.2022.
Whether the State is directed to provide security cover without an application under the Government Order dated 9.5.2014.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shrikant Tyagi vs. State of UPReferred¶9
Writ C No.32729 of 2016 (Shrikant Tyagi vs. State of UP and 3 ors.)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajendra Yadav
Anoth
State of U.P.
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
