JUDGMENT A.K. Yog, J.
1. Vinay Kumar Shakya, petitioner before us, has filed present writ petition under Article 226, Constitution of India, primarily claiming a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash impugned order dated 29-12-2003 passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, District Etawah-Auraiya (Annexure-l to the writ petition) directing the; petitioner to deposit in Police Office Rs. 5,84,046/- towards expense's for the security (2 Head Security and 4 Security Guards) placed: at his disposal during February 4, 2003 to September 5, 2003 when he was not the Minister in U.P. Government and to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding Respondents to provide appropriate security guard to the petitioner for protection of his life and further to direct the Respondents not to harass the petitioner by implicating him in false cases and other usual reliefs.
2. Back drop of events, which are now a days quite frequently noticed, has an unusual setting. Facts emerging on the canvass of the case are noted hereunder.
3. The petitioner is an active member of a political party, Bahujan Samajwadi Party, commonly called-BSP. He is 'public Figure' of Auraiya. He was provided security eversince 1994 when he was not even Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA). Petitioner contested Legislative Assembly Election in U.P. as BSP candidate in the year 2002 for Bidhuna Seat. He was Minister in U.P. Government headed by the then Chief Minister, Sushri Mayawati of BSP. BSP Government collapsed on August 25, 2003 and new Government was formed by Sri Mulayam Singh Yadav as Chief Minister being leader of Samajwadi Party in U.P.
4. According to the petitioner, on September 6, 2003, two First Information; Reports, implicating him and his brother in false criminal cases, were filed to coerce him to support the Government headed by Samajwadi party (SP), Petitioner did not yield to the said pressure and hence subjected to harassment. The petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petitions and his arrest was stayed. Ministry under leadership of Mulayam Singh Yadav proved majority on September 6, 2003. Another First Information Report/implicating petitioner out of political vengeance, was lodged on 25-9-2003. This time also petitioner filed writ petition arid his arrest was stayed by this Court, details of such writ petitions are not necessary to be noted. Copies of the orders, passed by this Court, staying arrest of the petitioner, in different Writ petitions filed against such F.I.Rs. lodged against the petitioner (at a crucial junction of political upheaval), are Annexures-7, 8 and 9 to the writ petition.
5. According to the petitioner, he ceased to be Minister on 4-2-2003. His security was, however, continued for six months i.e. 13-03-2003 to 12-9-2003 in pursuance to the letter dated 7-4-2003 written by Deputy Secretary, Government of U.P. (Home) to the District Magistrate and the Senior, Superintendent of Police of the district This letter was followed by another letter dated 2-7-2003 from the Deputy Secretary, U.P. Government, Lucknow to the D.M./S.S.P. concerned intimating Government decision to continue already existing ¼iznRr½ 'security' of the petitioner for one year-i.e. upto September 11, 2004.
6. However, Senior Superintendent of Police, Etawah, vide order 30-8-2003, directed to withdraw 'security' attached with he petitioner. Petitioner submitted representation dated 3-9- 2003/Anncxure-4 to the writ petition. Security provided to the petitioner was, however, actually withdrawn w.e.f. September 5,2003 (as mentioned in the impugned order-Annexure-1 to the W.P.).
7. Shri Ram Gopal Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner stated before this Court that petitioner, during pendency of this writ petition (which was presented in Court on 20-01-04), has been provided one security guard (gunner) in view of the State Government order dated 25-4-2001/Annexure-11 to the writ petition which contains criterion and conditions on which security/additional security is to be provided to certain persons. It is stated that the petitioner shall approach State Government for additional security and, relief for additional security, for the time being, is not pressed. Petitioner shall pursue his remedy outside court and approach this court if at all necessary i.e. denial of additional security arbitrarily or due to extraneous consideration, Shri Ram Gopal Tripathi, Advocate drew our notice to para-10 of the counter affidavit (filed on behalf of the Respondents and sworn by Ram Abhilash Singh Yadav on 24-8-2004) wherein Respondents admit that petitioner is facing criminal cases. Relying upon aforesaid facts (mentioned in para-10 of the counter affidavit), it is argued that these facts constitute 'strong case' for providing additional security.
8. Be that as it may, in view of the above; we feel that let the petitioner approach State Government and his request we have no doubt, shall be considered objectively and dispassionately in accordance with the norms, terms and conditions contained in the relevant G.Os. on the subject and which may be in force at the relevant time. If petitioner finds that his request is not considered and/or his case is not being decided in accordance with law, he may then approach proper forum for redressal of his grievance.
9. Second relief is to quash the impugned order which required the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,84,046/- in lieu of retaining 'escort' and 'security' during 4-2-2003 to 5-9-2003.
10. We find that February 4, 2003 is the date when petitioner ceased to be a Minister. September 5,2003 is the date when the petitioner was deprived of entire security.
11. The question is-'Whether petitioner is liable to pay the amount claimed in the impugned order for 'security and escort' provided by the Government during 4-2-2003 to 5-9-2003?
12. As noted earlier in this judgment, Deputy Secretary, Government of U.P. (Home) had written two letters dated 7-4-2003 and 2-7-2003, addressed to the District-Magistrate and the SSP requiring them to continue and maintain security of the petitioner without imposing condition of payment. As per these letters (copies filed as Annexures-2 and 3 to the W.P.), petitioner was entitled to retain 'security and escort' without charges upto 12-9-2004. One finds that under letter dated 7-4-2004 (Annexure 2 to W.P.), his security was extended for six months, i.e. from 4-3-2003 to 12-9-2003. Under Government letter dated 7-4-2003 (Annexure 3 to W.P.), security was continued for one year- i.e. upto September 11, 2004.
13. Aforementioned relevant facts, find mention in paras-15, 16 and 17 of the writ petition, which are reproduced:
"15. That looking to the danger of his life, petitioner moved an application before the State Government for providing him appropriate security. In this regard a letter was also written by the Deputy. Secretary Government of U.P. to the S.S.P./D.M. Etawah to provide an additional gunner to the petitioner. For the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court a true copy of the letter dated 7th April, 2003 written by the Deputy Secretary, Government of U.P. to the SSP/DM Etawah is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. 2 to the present petition.
16. That vide letter dated 2nd July 2003 the Deputy Secretary, Government of U.P. had written to the D.M./S.S.P. Auraiya to continue the security adjustment to the petitioner for one more year. For the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court a true copy of the letter dated 2nd July, 2003 written by the Deputy Secretary, Government. of U.P. is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. 3 to this writ petition.
17. That the security provided to the petitioner vide letter dated 2nd July 2003 was withdrawn by me Senior Superintendent of Police, Etawah on 30-8-03 without giving any reason, as soon as the Samajwadi party Govt. was formed on 29-8-03. In the aforesaid compelling circumstances petitioner had been left with no other remedy than to move an application in this regard before the Principal Secretary (Home) Government of U.P. to maintain the security to him as was previously given to him. For kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court a true copy of the letter dated 03-09-03 written by the petitioner to Principal Secretary, (Home) is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure-4 to this writ petition."
14. Paras-12 and 13 of the Counter Affidavit, in reply to the aforesaid pleadings in the writ petition are, for ready reference, reproduced below:
"12. That in reply to the contents of paras 15 and 16 of the writ petition, it is stated that no such letter or information has been given by the State Government to respondent No. 3. In this regard the copy of the letter dated 20-8-04 of R.I., Police Lines Auraiya, is being filed herewith as Annexure CA-1 to this affidavit.
13. That the contents of para 17 of the writ petition as stated are denied. In reply thereof, it is stated that the verbal order was passed regarding withdrawing of police squad provided to the petitioner' and later on, on 22-4-03 a letter was sent to the Head of Police Squad/Guard Commander asking him to return back. A true copy of the letter dated 22-4-03 is being filed herewith as Annexure CA-2 to this affidavit."
15. Curiously, paras-12 and 13 of the counter affidavit do not categorically and specifically deny, as of facts, aforesaid letters (Annexures-2 and 3 to the w.p.) Respondents ought to have, in particular, deny that no order or letter was issued by the Government for extending security to the petitioner or that these letters are without authority or forged and fabricated. Para-12 of the counter affidavit are evasive inasmuch as letter dated 20-8-2004/Annexure CA-1 (referred in para 12 of the counter affidavit) has no relevance to the contents of paragraphs-15 and 16 of the writ petition. It is also to be noted that said letter dated 20-4-2004 (Annexure CA-1) came into existence after about one year of withdrawal of security. In view of categorical averments in paragraphs-15,16 and 17 of the writ petition, respondents were expected to come out with categorical averments (relying upon relevant record before it) that these letters/Annexures-2 and 3 to the W.P. (relied upon by the petitioner) are of no consequence Necessary pleadings are conspicuously absent in the counter affidavit. We also find that the petitioner's letter dated 3-9-2003, written to the Principal Secretary (Annexure-4 to the W.P.) refers to one of the Government order/letter dated 2-7-2003. In case there was no such letter dated 2-7-2003, as referred to in the said representation, it was as expected that Respondents Authority' should have immediately raised the issue and denied its existence.
16. Further, in para-12 of the counter affidavit, the only averment is that State Government sent no letter/information to the Senior Superintendent of Police/Respondent No. 3 (as stated in paragraphs-15 and 16 of the writ petition). There is no categorical averment that letters dated 7-4-2003 and 27-2003 were not sent by the then Deputy Secretary, as claimed by the petitioner or that Government had not taken decision in this respect as mentioned in those letters.
17. In view of the fact that 'security' of the petitioner was in fact continued and maintained during the period mentioned in these letters, prima facie in absence of anything contrary go to establish existence of aforementioned orders of the Government communicated by Deputy Secretary vide his two letters dated 7-4-2003 and 2-7-2003/Annexures-2 and 3 respectively.
18. Learned Standing Counsel, however, submitted that aforesaid impugned order mentions that 'security' was extended on the terms on which security was provided prior to 4-2-2003 during the period petitioner was Minister in the Government. Obviously, no amount is being claimed for, maintaining security prior to 4-2-2003 when petitioner was 'Minister'. If any amount was requited to be paid by the petitioner as per earlier conditions (for providing security during his tenure as Minister) that amount ought to have been claimed and mentioned by the Respondents in the impugned order. Mere fact that no amount is being claimed for providing security prior to 4-2-2003 shows that no amount is payable by the petitioner for security provided to him during 4-2-2003 to 5-9-2003, also (mentioned in the impugned order). Consequently, there is no justification or valid basis for maintaining security during 4-2-2003 to 5-9-2003.
19. There is therefore, no reason to disbelieve the averments made in paragraphs 15, l6 and 17 of the writ petition.
20. It is well settled principle of law that, 'No one can come against one's own act' base on legal Maxim- 'Nemo Contra factum Suum Venire Protest' Government/Respondents are not supposed and/or expected to litigate rashly or without reasonable ground-TOMERE LITIGARE.
21. Besides the above, respondents have not filed copy of relevant G.O. for providing security to show that petitioner was liable to pay any amount when security and escort were provided to him in his capacity as Minister.
22. In the result the impugned order dated 29-12-2003/Annexure-l to the writ petition suffers from manifest error apparent on the face of record and accordingly quashed and it is declared that the Petitioner is not liable to make payment under impugned order lot the 'security' provided to him during 4-2-2003 to 5-9-2003.
23. As far as prayer for issuing a writ of mandamus commanding Respondents not to harass petitioner by implicating him in false cases is concerned, we do not find on record that any other case implicating him has been filed against the petitioner. Whatever First Information Reports were lodged in the past prior to tiling of this writ petition, chargesheets, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, have been submitted. Therefore, there is no occasion for us to issue writ of mandamus in that respect.
24. Consequently, writ petition stands allowed subject to the observations and to the extent indicated above.
25. Considering the fact that petitioner had to rush to this Court unnecessarily on more than one occasion, we award Rs. 10,000/- as costs against respondents to be paid within one month of receipt of certified copy of this judgment and order by Respondent No. 1. to the petitioner.