Hon'ble Manoj Misra, 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.
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 The security cover provided to him on 3.2.2008, has been withdrawn on 25.12.2011.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 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 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 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 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.
Order Date :- 21.2.2012 Nethra