Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1189 (ALL)

MOKHTAR ANSARI v. STATE OF U P

2001-12-20

ASHISH N.TRIVEDI, M.A.KHAN

body2001
M. A. KHAN, J. This writ petition has been field by the petitioner for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties to provide security to the petitioner free of cost and of "z" category. 2. The petitioner has field this petition with the allegation that he is duly elected member of the Legislative Assembly and was so elected from Mau Constituency of Uttar Pradesh in 1996. The State Government provided security of two Gunners to the petitioner, but subsequently an order (Annexure No. 1) was passed by the State Government thereby providing six security guards to the petitioner in view of the threat and danger to his life. 3. The State Government passed different orders on different occasions thereby enhancing and reducing the security to the petitioner from time to time. The main plea of the petitioner is that on 15-7-2001, an attempt to murder the petitioner was made by one Brijesh Singh, who is known as Mafia leader and who is now under the support of the ruling party. In that incident while the petitioner himself had sustained injuries, one of the Gunner provided to him was shot dead, and another person, who was his personal security man was also murdered. Besides it several persons had sustained injuries. From the side of assailants one person had also died. An F. I. R. was lodged vide Annexure No. 6 and there after, higher authorities had directed investigation of this case by the C. B. I. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Ghazipur vide letter dated 20-7-2001 had narrated that incident in this letter addressed to the D. I. G. Varanasi and it has been mentioned in that letter by the Superintendent of Police, Ghazipur to D. I. C. Varanasi that the petitioner was assaulted by the miscreants and as such the matter be enquired into by the C. B. I. Subsequently Sri Mahesh Chandra Dwivedi. Director-General of Police, Uttar Pradesh also wrote a letter to the Principal Secretary (Home), Uttar Pradesh Shasan on 27- 7-2001, in which that incident was narrated and he also recommended that the incident be enquired into by the C. B. I. and there are serious threats to life of the petitioner. After this incident, the security of the petitioner was enhanced by the Superintendent of Police, Ghazipur and by the Home Department. 5. After this incident, the security of the petitioner was enhanced by the Superintendent of Police, Ghazipur and by the Home Department. 5. The petitioner alleges that in similarly placed circumstances, higher security was provided to other persons, but the petitioner has been deprived of that security despite the genuine threat perceptions to his life. 6. From the side of the opposite parties counter-affidavit has been field and it has been pleaded that the petitioner is no doubt a member of the legislative Assembly elected from Mau constituency, but he himself is a Mafia leader, and on different occasions, security was provided to him. He is already getting benefit of one Gunner, and Shadow was also provided to him, but he refused to accept that benefit. It has also been pleaded that the petitioner himself has a licence of fire-arms and his family members have also different licences for different fire-arms. It has further been pleaded that the petitioner himself has also several persons with arms and ammunitions for his security and the activities of the petitioner creates a terror in the minds of the public of the area. It has also been pleaded that in case higher security is provided to the petitioner, it will give a bad impression and image of the administration. 7. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 8. It is not denied in the present case that the petitioner is a duly elected member of the Legislative Assembly and in view of the Government Order issued, he is entitled to one security guard in the shape of Gunner as of right and free of cost. In view of threat perceptions of the life of the petitioner, one more security guard was ordered to be provided to him. It is no doubt true that vide order dated 10-10- 95 passed by the Special Secretary (Home) Uttar Pradesh Shasan, a copy of which is Annexure 1, the petitioner was provided with six security guards, but the aforesaid security was subsequently withdrawn. It however, remains a fact that the petitioner was assaulted on 15-7-2001, while he was on way from Ghazipur to Mau. The Superintendent of Police has mentioned about the incident in his letter dated 20-7-2001. a copy of which is on record and it is addressed to Subhash Chandra Gupta, D. I. G. Varanasi. It however, remains a fact that the petitioner was assaulted on 15-7-2001, while he was on way from Ghazipur to Mau. The Superintendent of Police has mentioned about the incident in his letter dated 20-7-2001. a copy of which is on record and it is addressed to Subhash Chandra Gupta, D. I. G. Varanasi. In that incident as many as eight persons did sustained injuries, one Gunner was also killed and besides it two other person were also killed. The Superintendent of Police, Ghazipur recommended that the matter may be enquired by the C. B. I. Thereafter, the Director-General of Police, Uttar Pradesh vide his letter dated 27-7-2001 has also written a letter to the Principal Secretary (Home), Uttar Pradesh Shasan, in which it was prayed that the incident is serious one and it should be enquired into by C. B. I. The persons, who were assailants in that incident were Brijesh Singh and Tribhuvan Singh, who are the known criminals and rewards on their heads had been announced by the U. P. Government. It is denied by the respondents that the threat perceptions to the petitioner exists and is genuine. However the case of respondents simply is that the petitioner himself, is responsible for such a threat as he himself is involved in various criminal cases and criminal activities and always remains surrounded by enemies and therefore, he is not entitled to the enhanced security. 9. It has been argued by the learned Standing Counsel that the petitioner himself is involved in several criminal cases and is himself a Mafia and can afford to his own security. As against it, the case of the petitioner is that he has been involved in these criminal cases falsely due to political vendetta and not only he, but his real brother is also an M. L. A. and he hails from a very respectable family. Be that as it may, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner has ever been convicted in any case. The petitioner is an elected representative of the Legislative Assembly and in view of the latest occurrence which found attention or the Director-General of Police of Uttar Pradesh, we feel that threat perception to the petitioner at present appears genuine. The petitioner is an elected representative of the Legislative Assembly and in view of the latest occurrence which found attention or the Director-General of Police of Uttar Pradesh, we feel that threat perception to the petitioner at present appears genuine. More so that the elections of the U. P. Vidhan Sabha are ahead and are due in February 2002 and the petitioner, being public representative will contest the election, may come in touch with the persons of cross society. 10. Having considered all facts and peculiar circumstances of the case, we feel it just and proper and in the fitness of things if the petitioner is provided an enhanced security at least temporarily and for the time being. The State Administration has already provided him a Gunner and a Shadow and it will be proper if he gets two more Gunners for the time being. 11. In these circumstances, we therefore, direct the respondents, that within ten days of the receipt of the certified copy of this order, the petitioner shall be provided four Gunners for his security two out of them be free of cost and the remaining two will be on 25% expenses. It is however made clear that the security so provided to the petitioner will be just a temporary measure and will be reviewed by the newly elected State Government immediately after U. P. Vidhan Sabha Elections and information of Government. 12. With these observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of finally. Petition disposed of. .