Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 660 (ALL)

SHALABH KHANNA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2001-07-10

M.A.KHAN, VIRENDRA SARAN

body2001
VIRENDRA SARAN, M. A. KHAN, JJ. ( 1 ) BY way of this petition, the petitioner wants this Court to issue a direction in the nature of certiorari quashing a part of the Impugned order dated 25. 4. 2001 passed by the State of U. P. as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition and further prays for quashing the order dated 11. 5. 2001 as contained in Annexure-4 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Bahraich, whereunder the security guard provided to the petitioner has been directed to be provided on payment of 100% expenses. ( 2 ) IT appears that there were threats to the security of the petitioner and the U. P. Government had provided some sort of security to him in the shape of gunner on payment of 100% expenses. It further appears that the order aforesaid has been withdrawn and modified by the superintendent of Police, Bahraich, vide his order dated 11. 5. 2001 in view of the Government order No. 1773 (1 ). Cha-Pu-2-2001-700 (1)/2001 dated 25. 4. 2001 issued by the U. P. Government. ( 3 ) THE contention of the petitioner is that the Government order dated 25. 4. 2001 passed by the U. P. Government is unconstitutional and discriminatory as it tends to discriminate between a citizen and a citizen and furthermore, there was no justification with the Superintendent of police, Bahraich, to provide security to the petitioner on payment of 100% expenses. ( 4 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the Government order dated April 25, 2001, as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition which provides certain guidelines to the District Magistrates, Commissioners and the Officers of the Police in the entire State of U. P. as to how security to various categories of persons shall be provided. It says that trained shadow shall be provided instead of gunners and the gunners with uniform shall be provided to the Ministers, High Court Judges, Members of Parliament and the Legislature. Certain categories have been mentioned in this Government order. It has further laid down that a committee headed by the District Magistrate in every district shall be constituted which shall examine the need of a particular citizen in respect of gunner. Certain categories have been mentioned in this Government order. It has further laid down that a committee headed by the District Magistrate in every district shall be constituted which shall examine the need of a particular citizen in respect of gunner. Where the security of such a citizen is threatened, then the aforesaid committee shall take decision and provide necessary security, categories-wise and in the light of guidelines given in the Government order. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has challenged this Government order on the ground that it discriminates between a citizen and a citizen and there was no justification for providing such categories. ( 6 ) WE have considered this argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner and we find no force in it. It will not be possible for any civilized State or Administration to provide a gunner or a shadow to every citizen of the State. This is rather humanly impossible for any administrative machinery to do it. Besides the fact that it will be expensive, it will also not be practicable to provide. It is, in fact, the basic duty of administration to protect the life and property of every citizen. However, if there is a demand by any citizen of the State to have a gunner or a shadow, it will not be possible for administration to meet such a demand. Thus, keeping in view these factors that theadministration thought ft proper to constitute a committee In every district of which the District Magistrate shall be the Chairman and the Superintendent of Police shall be a member. If any demand by any citizen of a district is made to the committee for providing special security by way of a shadow or a gunner, the committee shall consider the same and pass suitable orders. It will be the discretion of the committee as to on what terms and conditions, a shadow or a gunner should be provided and it will also be considered by the committee whether the request to provide a gunner or a shadow is genuine or not. The provision for a shadow or a gunner cannot be made as a status symbol. We have observed above, that it is a sacred duty to every civilized state to protect the life and property of every citizen. The provision for a shadow or a gunner cannot be made as a status symbol. We have observed above, that it is a sacred duty to every civilized state to protect the life and property of every citizen. To provide a shadow or gunner to every citizen, is, however, not the alternative and it is also neither practicable nor is called for, The discretion is there with the committee to consider the matter and on such consideration and guidelines, the committee may provide security as a special case. It is also not possible for the committee or for the administration to provide one and similar type of security to each and every person. One person may be very important from many points of view and other person of the State may not be so important. Furthermore, threat to security may differ from one person to another person. Thus, keeping in view of these factors and also the burden on the State exchequer and the frequent demand by various persons to have the gunner or the shadow, U. P. Government has decided to issue a Government order dated 25. 4. 2001. ( 7 ) WE find that the aforesaid Government order is neither unconstitutional nor it tends to discriminate between one citizen or the other. Since, the Superintendent of Police, Bahraich, has passed an order dated 11. 5. 2001 in the light of the guidelines given in the Government order dated 25. 4. 2001, therefore, the aforesaid order dated 11. 5. 2001 passed by the Superintendent of police. Bahraich cannot be termed as bad in law. We are also of the opinion that the discretion in this case has not been exercised in any arbitrary or capricious manner and it is also not tainted with any extraneous consideration so as to merit interference in the discretionary writ jurisdiction. ( 8 ) AT this stage, we express our displeasure over the policy of the State Government in respect of provision of special security which in fact should be transparent. We feel that the policy of providing extra and heavy security to the political leaders is not a good taste. ( 8 ) AT this stage, we express our displeasure over the policy of the State Government in respect of provision of special security which in fact should be transparent. We feel that the policy of providing extra and heavy security to the political leaders is not a good taste. The sitting governor, Chief Minister, Ministers, Supreme Court and High Courts Judges, Members of parliament and the Members of Legislative Assembly can be provided reasonable and proper security because in their discharge of official duties, they may pass orders or execute them to the pleasure or displeasure of many. However, the same type of security should not be provided to the Ex. Chief Minister, Ex. Ministers or retired persons. It should not be expected and it definitely burdens the State Exchequer also. There can be political rivalry alright, but seeking special security on that ground or count and that too at the cost of State Exchequer is not a healthy sign and it must be stopped forthwith. If the threat perception is really genuine, the security can be provided on payment of 100% expenses and at least by those persons who are in a position to bear it. The provision of security in the shape of big contingent and that too at the expenses of public is a luxury, a fashion and is considered as a status symbol. The State of U. P. which is already in deep financial crises must reconsider this policy in respect of higher ups as well. ( 9 ) WE further direct that the District Magistrates and the Superintendents of Police, viz. , the committee in the district shall not act arbitrarily while considering the prayer of any citizen for providing any special security. The committee shall not be influenced by any extraneous consideration and shall also not act under the dictates of their political bosses. We, therefore, direct that whenever any prayer for providing special security to any citizen is made, the committee shall consider it seriously and shall grant or refuse such prayer by a speaking and reasoned order so that, if it is questioned before the Home Department of the State or in any court of Law, the aforesaid authority or the Court may be in a position to appreciate as to on what grounds the District Committee has refused or granted special security to the citizen. ( 10 ) LET a copy of this judgment be sent to all the District Magistrates and the Superintendents of police in the State of U. P. for their guidance and necessary compliance, through Registrar. ( 11 ) THIS petition is, however, dismissed. .