Allahabad High Court
Nand Gopal Gupta (Nandi) vs State Of U.P.Throu Prin. Secy. Home ... on 10 July, 2019
Bench: Ajai Lamba, Narendra Kumar Johari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 2 Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 7106 of 2012 Petitioner :- Nand Gopal Gupta (Nandi) Respondent :- State Of U.P.Throu Prin. Secy. Home Deptt.Lko.And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Sandeep Dixit,Anand Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ajai Lamba,J.
Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
(ORAL)
1. Nand Gopal Gupta (Nandi) has preferred this petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 25.04.2012 passed by District Level Committee, appended with the petition as Annexure - 1.
The petition also seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 10.05.2012 (Annexure - 2) so far as it reduces 'Z' category security to the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not appeared to prosecute the case.
The case relates to the year 2012. 7 years have gone by. This Court cannot wait for indefinite period to await appearance of the counsel.
With the assistance of Shri Raj Baksh Singh, learned counsel for the respondent/State, we have gone through the pleadings and considered the issue.
3. Shri Raj Baksh Singh, learned counsel for the respondent/State, has aptly pointed out that Nand Gopal Gupta 'Nandi' preferred three petitions on various dates with the same plea. The petition filed in the year 2015, the same being Writ Petition No.7813 of 2015 titled 'Nand Gopal Gupta 'Nandi' Vs. Union of India & Ors.' has been decided vide order dated 26.07.2017 by a Division Bench of this Court. Since the issue remains the same, no order is required to be passed in this petition.
4. We have gone through order dated 26.07.2019 (supra). The relevant portion of the order reads as under:-
".........However, the Security Categorization Committee recommended to provide the security cover of three P.S.Os., Guard of 1-3 and 1-3 Escort whereas the State Government had provided only three P.S.Os. and 1-3 Escort. Aggrieved petitioner had filed a writ petition being writ petition no.7106 MB of 2012 to provide security as per recommendation of the Security Categorization Committee but instead of providing him security as per recommendation of the Committee, the security provided to the petitioner was withdrawn w.e.f. 31.08.2013.
It is stated that threat to the petitioner's life further increased when Vijay Mishra was granted bail on 17.08.2012. The petitioner further submitted an application for providing security to the Secretary Home, Government of India on 01.06.2013 as well as to the Director, Intelligence Bureau, Hon'ble President of India, Home Minister, Government of India and Prime Minister. The petitioner's application was examined by the Intelligence Bureau and a report was submitted to the Union of India for taking decision on petitioner's security matter but when no action was taken, the petitioner had again filed a writ petition no.8151 MB of 2013 in which the petitioner was granted liberty to make a representation to the Home Minister for providing security pursuant to which the Government of India provided 'Y' category security with Central Reserve Police Force vide order dated 28.03.2014, thus the petitioner had been clothed with 'Y' category security w.e.f. 31.03.2014 by the decision of the Central Government till the order impugned dated 19.08.2015. The petitioner is a victim and injured witness in case crime no.237 of 2010 registered under Sections 302, 307, 427, 429, 120B I.P.C., 3/5 Explosive Act, 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2/3(1) Gangster Act, Police Station Kotwali, Allahabad.
The respondent nos.1 to 3 have filed counter affidavit to defend their order but during pendency of the present writ petition, the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India took a decision on 27.01.2017 with consultation of Central Security Agencies to provide 'Y' category security cover through Central Reserve Police Force. Accordingly, the orders impugned have become non-est and the dispute for providing security to the petitioner has been set at rest. However, since the petitioner feels endanger to his life from the persons referred to above, at this stage, he has prayed for issuing direction to extend his security cover beyond the territory of the State of U.P. as he oftenly uses to go beyond the State like Delhi and other States.
In view of the aforesaid submissions, we are of the view that since the 'Y' category security of the petitioner has been restored only the petitioner's request for its extension beyond the territory of State of U.P., requires consideration of the State Government keeping in view the threat perception to his life, therefore, we hereby direct the respondents to consider for extension of his security cover beyond the territory of State of U.P., keeping in view the threat perception to his life. On the aforesaid aspect, the decision shall be taken by the respondents expeditiously preferably within one month from the date of communication of this order.
With the aforesaid directions, the orders impugned are declared non-est and the writ petition stands disposed of."
5. From the above extracted portion, we find that a reference has been made to the case under adjudication in decision dated 26.07.2017 also.
6. For the reasons given above, this petition is disposed of in terms of decision rendered by Division Bench of this Court while dealing with Writ Petition No.7813 of 2015 (supra) decided on 26.07.2017, relevant portion whereof has been extracted above.
Order Date :- 10.7.2019 Nishant/-