Justice Gogoi dismissed a PIL filed by R.S. Jaura seeking a uniform policy for security cover across political parties. The court held the PIL stemmed from personal interest and involved purely administrative issues.
The Public Interest Litigation was dismissed; no order as to costs.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 1770 of 2010
Date of decision: 02.01.2012
R.S.Jaura ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
........Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present: Mr. Gursharan Singh, Advocate for Mr. Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anupinder Singh Grewal, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State of Punjab.
RANJAN GOGOI, CJ. : (Oral)
This Public Interest Litigation has been filed seeking directions from the Court for framing of a 'uniform policy' for providing personal security cover to the citizens of the country so as to avoid any discrimination in the matter of providing such security between members of different political parties.
The institution of the present Public Interest Litigation seeking the aforementioned relief finds root in an order dated 07.01.2010 by which the security cover granted to the petitioner was withdrawn. Such security cover, according to the petitioner, has been maintained in so far as the personal friends of the Akali leaders are concerned. Hence, the grievance raised seeking the Court's interference in the matter of framing of an 'uniform policy'.
Having outlined the broad features of this Public Interest Litigation not much persuasion was required to enable us to take the
C.W.P. No. 1770 of 2010
[2]
view that we should not entertain this Public Interest Litigation any further. Not only this Public Interest Litigation seems to have stemmed from the personal interest of the petitioner but the issues raised are purely administrative issues with which the Court would not be ordinarily concerned. If the petitioner is any way aggrieved by the refusal or withdrawal of the security cover granted to him, it was always open to him to approach the Competent Authority laying the full facts and complete details and seeking remedial action. Instead of adopting such course of action, the petitioner has rushed to this Court by instituting the present Public Interest Litigation.
In the facts and circumstances stated above, we are unable to continue to entertain this Public Interest Litigation any further. The Public Interest Litigation is accordingly dismissed. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs.
(RANJAN GOGOI) CHIEF JUSTICE
(MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE
02.01.2012 ravinder
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court should entertain a PIL seeking a uniform security policy after the petitioner's security was withdrawn.
Whether the Court's intervention is appropriate in purely administrative disputes regarding security cover allocation.
R.S. Jaura
State of Punjab
Ranjan Gogoi
Mahesh Grover
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
