Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19843 of 2019 Petitioner :- Smt. Soni Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaurav Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1, 2 and 3; and perused the record.
It appears that the petitioner's husband was provided security in the State of Uttarakhand, pursuant to an order passed by the writ court at Uttarakhand, on the ground that the petitioner's husband had instituted a public interest litigation on account of which there was threat perception.
The petitioner, who resides in the State of Uttar Pradesh, sought a similar protection in District Rampur. When the same was not accorded, Writ-C No.6521 of 2019 was filed which was disposed off by order, dated 30.03.2019, requiring the District Committee to examine the matter and to take its decision.
It appears, the District Committee, by impugned order, dated 11th May, 2019, rejected the claim of the petitioner by observing that there appears a dispute between the father and son, namely, between father-in-law of the petitioner and her husband, on account of which there were some cases under investigation. The District Committee found that there was only a private family dispute and a case for grant of security was not made out.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Committee has not examined the claim of the petitioner in the true spirit of the order passed in Writ-C No.6521 of 2019 and, therefore, the matter requires reconsideration. More so, because threat to the petitioner was not from family members but from those who were affected by order passed in the public interest litigation preferred by the petitioner's husband.
We have perused the application of the petitioner addressed to the District Magistrate, Rampur, pursuant to the order passed in Writ-C No.6521 of 2019. The same is at page 41 of the paper book.
A bare perusal of the application would reveal that there is no disclosure in the application as to from whom there is a threat perception. Neither the name nor the parentage of any person has been provided in the application to disclose that there is threat from such and such person. Even there is no disclosure of any untoward incident on the basis of which such threat perception could be had.
Under the circumstances, we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order passed by the Committee. The petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.6.2019 AKShukla/-