Punjab-Haryana High Court
Randeep Singh Surjewala vs Union Of India And Others on 10 March, 2017
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
CWP No.13266 of 2016 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.13266 of 2016 (O&M)
Date of Decision.10.03.2017
Randeep Singh Surjewala .......Petitioner
Vs
Union of India and others ........Respondents
Present: Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate with
Mr. J.S. Toor, Advocate with
Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate and
Mr. R. Kartikeya, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Senior Panel Counsel
for Union of India.
Mr. Sandeep S. Mann, Sr. DAG, Haryana
for the State.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
-.-
AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL)
C.M. No.3091 of 2017 Application is allowed.
Additional affidavit is taken on record.
CWP No.13266 of 2016 In view of the affidavit dated 16.02.2017 of Sh. Neh Srivastava, Under Secretary (VS), Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, IS-II Division (VIP Security Unit), NDCC-II Building, Jai Singh Road, New Delhi, which reads as under, Mr. Toor, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that grievance of the petitioner stands vindicated, in essence, he has been presently categorized in Y+ category of protectee list all over India and in Delhi Y category:-
"1. It is submitted that in compliance with the Hon'ble Court's direction dated 12.01.2017 (a) Delhi Police was requested, as an interim measure, to provide Shri Randeep Singh Surjewala 'Y' (threat) (now called 'Y'+) category security cover in the central list;
1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 12-03-2017 11:05:10 ::: CWP No.13266 of 2016 (O&M) -2- and (b) IB was requested to carry out fresh threat assessment of Shri Surjewala for consideration by competent authority for placing him in Central protectee list.
2. During the Security Categorization Committee's meetings in December, 2016 it was considered essential to change the nomenclature 'Y' (threat) to 'Y'+ and the 'Y' (positional) to 'Y'. Accordingly, with the approval of the competent authority, MHA OM No.VI-23015/10/2013-VS dated 27.01.2017 regarding creation of Y+ and Y categories in the 'Yellow Book' was issued.
3. That the threat assessment of Shri Randeep Singh Surjewala has again been obtained from Central Security Agency. As per their report, fresh assessment of threat to Shri Randeep Singh Surjewala, MLA, Kaithal Assembly Constituency (Haryana) does not indicate any specific threat to him from any terrorist or militant outfits.
4. Shri Surjewala is present a Y+ (earlier called Y threat) category protectee in Haryana and has been provided with full component of entitled security by the State Government. As a Y+ category state protectee, he will be entitled for the same category of security cover in all other parts of the country including in the State of Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Uttarakhand, Manipur and Goa, where electioneering is going on, except in Delhi where he would be entitled for 'Y' category protection as a visiting protectee. Besides during his visit to other States, the security personnel deployed with him may also accompany him during his tours outside the State, if the tour is not more than three days.
5. In absence of any specific input of threat to Shri Randeep Singh Surjewala, either from any terrorist or militant outfits or fundamentalist groups and considering the fact that he is a categorized protectee of the Government of Haryana, inclusion of his name as a categorized protectee in the Central List in Delhi is not warranted."
However, Mr. Toor has expressed apprehension that at any stage or at any point of time, the respondents may place the petitioner in a different category and in that eventuality, the petitioner may be afforded an opportunity of hearing or permission of the Court may be sought.
2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 12-03-2017 11:05:11 ::: CWP No.13266 of 2016 (O&M) -3- Mr. Pankaj Gupta, senior panel counsel for UOI submits that categorization is done by State of Haryana.
Keeping in view the apprehension already expressed in so many words in the writ petition, in case both the respondents i.e. Union of India and State of Haryana deem it appropriate to change the category, permission may be sought from this Court.
The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms.
(AMIT RAWAL)
JUDGE
March 10, 2017
Pankaj*
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 12-03-2017 11:05:11 :::