Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Taja Parveen & Ors vs State Of J&K; & Ors on 11 December, 2018

Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 J AND K 726

Bench: Ali Mohammad Magrey, Sanjeev Kumar

 Serial No. 08
 Regular List
                    HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
                              AT SRINAGAR
LPAOW No. 87/2018
IA No. 01/2018
                                             Date of Order: 11th of December, 2018.

                                 Taja Parveen & Ors
                                          Vs.
                                  State of JK & Ors.

Coram:
                 Hon'ble Mr Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey, Judge.
                    Hon'ble Mr Justice Sanjeev Kumar, Judge.

Appearance:
     For the Appellant(s):         Mr G.A. Lone, Advocate.
     For the Respondent(s):        Mr B.A. Dar, Sr AAG.

{Per Magrey, J (Oral)};

01. The instant Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the final order dated 24.08.2018, passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court in OWP No. 732/2018, I.A. No. 01/2018, in terms whereof, the writ petition of appellant stands dismissed.

02. Aggrieved of the order impugned order bearing No. Scc/J&K/Estates/P- 07/2017-18/2529-38 dated 26.04.2018, whereby, Respondent No. 5, has cancelled the allotment of rooms, possessed by the petitioners/appellants herein, the petitioners/appellants herein, questioned the same in the writ petition, seeking its quashment with further prayer to allow the petitioners and their families to continue to reside in the allotted accommodations.

03. The petitioners/appellants as stated in this appeal are affiliated with various political organizations, active in social upliftment of citizens residing in the Kashmir valley. It is further stated that the respondents on assessing threat LPAOW No. 87/2018 Page 1 of 4 IA No. 01/2018 perception of the petitioners/appellants as well as their families, have granted the petitioners/appellants the status of protected persons and allotted government accommodations in their favour. The petitioners/appellants further submitted that they were surprised to see that by virtue of order impugned, the allotment of one room out of allotted two room set, was cancelled, therefore, the petitioners/ appellants having no option, filed the writ petition for the reliefs as detailed out above. Petitioners/appellants in the writ petition had also contended that they being migrants, are entitled to same amenities as are being provided by the Government to the Pandit migrants.

04. The respondents in the reply filed in the writ petition, submitted that the petitioners were not utilizing the services of second room hotel accommodation and as such, allotment of one room out of two rooms was cancelled. It was further submitted that there is well defined policy regarding providing secured accommodation to individuals facing security threat. It was further submitted that the threat perception report got assessed by the CID wing of J&K Police, through filed agencies and the individuals facing security threat, are categorized by the Security Review Committee in accordance with the guidelines of Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India as laid down in yellow book and accommodation is accordingly allotted. The respondents had further submitted that merely being in politics or contesting elections, does not entitle an individual for security cover/secured accommodation in absence of any specific threat.

05. Mr G.A. Lone, learned appearing counsel for the appellants submits that the contentions raised by the appellants in the writ petition with reference to the decision of the respondents in curtailing their accommodation being arbitrary and unfair, therefore, deserving an opportunity of being heard before cancellation was not considered by the learned writ Court. Mr Lone, further submits that there was no material available with the respondent-Sr Superintendent of Police, Security, J&K Jammu/Srinagar, to come to the conclusion that the appellants were not LPAOW No. 87/2018 Page 2 of 4 IA No. 01/2018 utilizing the accommodation and therefore, had curtailed the accommodation. He further submits that the order impugned in the writ petition is not based on assessing threat perception or curtailing accommodation of the petitioners but is also an unfair and arbitrary decision taken by the respondent-Sr Superintendent of Police, Security, J&K Jammu/Srinagar, without even notice to the petitioners/appellants herein.

06. Mr B.A. Dar, learned Sr AAG submits that the assessment of threat perception of an individual who has threat to his life has to be done by the Security Review Committee. He also submits that in case of petitioners/appellants, the accommodation provided is also against the policy because no assessment of threat perception has been made by the Security Review Committee.

07. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter.

08. There is no denial of the fact that the assessment of the threat perception of an individual is the sole domain of the Security Review Committee, which may form ground for claiming accommodation at a secured place.

09. We are not dealing with a case where the accommodation provided to the petitioners/appellants is withdrawn as a sequel to the decision of the Security Review Committee for assessment of threat perception to the petitioners/ appellants but we are dealing with a case where admittedly the petitioners/ appellants have been provided the accommodation of two room set and subsequently, in terms of order impugned, the accommodation of one room was cancelled on the ground that the petitioners/appellants are occasionally using the same. We are in agreement with the submissions of the learned counsel for the State that the allotment of accommodation in favour of any individual having threat perception, is based on the decision of the Security Review Committee regarding threat perception.

10. The Court has no mechanism to assess the threat perception of an individual, approaching the Court. The mechanism is provided in terms of guidelines laid down in the yellow book while providing for quantum of security cover to be provided to the protected persons of respective categories. Law on the subject is settled and is reiterated by a Division Bench of this Court while deciding a batch of appeals with lead case being LPAOW No. 08/2014 titled Ajay Kumar Sadhotra vs State of J&K and Ors.

11. In the above background, We propose to dispose of the instant appeal by providing that the respondents are required to assess the threat perception of the petitioners in tune with the guidelines as laid down in the yellow book, by the competent authority. In the event, the respondents come to the conclusion that the petitioners have threat perception, they shall be accordingly provided security cover and accommodation as per their entitlement. The order of writ Court is accordingly modified.

12. Letters Patent Appeal, alongwith connected MP(s), disposed of as above.

                          (Sanjeev Kumar)           (Ali Mohammad Magrey)
                                Judge                         Judge
Srinagar
December 11th, 2018
"Hamid"




LPAOW No. 87/2018                                                       Page 4 of 4
IA No. 01/2018