Allahabad High Court
Dr.(Smt.) Parvin Azad vs State Of U.P. Thru. 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. - 8285 of 2015 Petitioner :- Dr.(Smt.) Parvin Azad Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy., Home Deptt. & 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Khaleeq Ahmad Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ajai Lamba,J.
Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
(ORAL)
1. Dr. (Smt.) Parvin Azad has approached this court forissuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing respondents to provide round the clock adequate security preferably 'Z' category.
2. Shri M.M.Salam,Advocate appearing for Shri Khaleeq Ahmad Khan learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that after murder of husband of the petitioner who was serving as Circle Officer Kunda, District Pratapgarh, the petitioner was provided 24 hours police protection in compliance of direction issued by then Chief Minster U.P. Government. According to the security arrangements armed police team had to guard the residence of the petitioner round the clock. It has been stated in the petition that under influence of certain politicians the security guards were misbehaving, and were not performing their duty. In view of the humiliation meted out the petitioner the writ petition was filed.
3. Vide order dated 16.9.2015 the following was provided:-
?Heard Sri Khaleeq Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents, who has placed before us the order dated 11.09.2015, passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow by which details of security guards appointed for security of the petitioner have been given. Let the said order be taken on record.
However, it will be proper that learned Chief Standing Counsel may file an appropriate affidavit in this regard.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly informed that the instructions received by the learned Chief Standing Counsel are correct and security has been provided to the petitioner.?
4. We find that security was provided to the petitioner in terms of undertaking given by the respondents State. However, this matter relates to the year 2015. Four years have gone by. The perception of threat to a person is a fluid situation, and changes from time to time. In such circumstances periodic review of security is required to be done.
5. Learned counsel for the State Shri Raj Baksh Singh has pointed out that government order dated 9.5.2014 provides such review by district level security committee which takes inputs from various sources. Shri Raj Baksh Singh has assured the court that perception of threat to the petitioner shall be reviewed by District Level Security committee in terms of government order dated 9.5.2014 within a period of six weeks of receipt of certified copy of this order.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he would be satisfied if the perception of threat is reviewed, as proposed by learned State Counsel. The petitioner would make appropriate application within ten days from today in terms of Government Order dated 9.5.2014.
7. This petition is disposed of with a direction to the District Level Security Committee constituted for District Lucknow to consider the application of the petitioner in terms of Government Order dated 9.5.2014, within a period of six weeks of receipt of application, and pass appropriate orders as required in facts and circumstances of the case.
Order Date :- 10.7.2019 Madhu