Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Mst. Saja Begum vs Ut Of J& K And Others on 12 June, 2023
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
Suppl. List
S.No.120
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
...
WP(C) No.1483/2023
CM No.3455/2023
MST. SAJA BEGUM
... Petitioner(s)
Through: -Mr.M.A.Wani, Advocate.
Vs.
UT OF J& K AND OTHERS
...Respondent(s)
Through: -None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
ORDER
12.06.2023
1) The petitioner has challenged Order No.SHQ/Legal/OWP- 06/2022/977-81 dated 31.05.2022 passed by respondent No.2, whereby after assessing the threat perception of the petitioner it has been provided that she is not entitled to security categorization/secured accommodation.
2) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
3) It seems that in an earlier round of litigation seeking somewhat similar relief, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of giving liberty to her to challenge order dated 31.05.2022, which has been impugned in the instant writ petition.
4) According to the petitioner, respondents were obliged to place her case before the Security Review Coordination Committee and the WP(C) No.1483/2023 page 1 of 3 respondents have, without undertaking such an exercise, passed the impugned order which is not in accordance with law. In this regard, the petitioner has relied upon decision of this Court in the case titled Chowdhary Ramzan vs. State and Ors.
5) If we have a look at the impugned order, it is clear that respondent No.2 has obtained reports from the field agencies and the said reports reveal that the threat quotient of the petitioner is one out of ten, which means that the petitioner has very low threat perception.
6) It is to be noted that the accommodation was initially provided to the husband of the petitioner who was Block President of a mainstream political party. After his death, the accommodation was provided to the petitioner but she kept the accommodation locked for about eight months. It seems that due to the continuous absence of the petitioner from the accommodation, her allotment was cancelled on 14.02.2022 and by virtue of interim direction passed by this Court in a writ petition filed by the petitioner she was allowed to retain the accommodation. Pursuant to the directions of this Court passed on 25.02.2022 in earlier writ petition, fresh assessment about the threat perception of the petitioner was conducted and it was found that risk to her life is very low.
7) Once it was found that risk to the life of the petitioner was very low her case could not have been placed before the Security Review Coordination Committee for deciding about her categorization. It is only when there is a specific life threat to the person that the matter is required to be considered by the Security Review Coordination WP(C) No.1483/2023 page 2 of 3 Committee for categorization of the individual who faces the specific threat. No exercise was required to be undertaken in the instant petition, because as per the report of field security agencies, the petitioner was not facing any threat to her life. Respondent No.2 has, therefore, rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner does not require to be given any accommodation for security reasons.
8) Apart from the above, even if it is assumed that the petitioner is facing security risk, it is only in exceptional circumstances, that she can be provided the accommodation at State expenses. Since the threat quotient of the petitioner is very low, as such there are no such exceptional circumstances that would warrant providing of accommodation to the petitioner at State expenses.
9) For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.
(SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE SRINAGAR 12.06.2023 Sarveeda Nissar WP(C) No.1483/2023 page 3 of 3