Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 717 (ALL)

M A KHAN CHAMAN v. STATE OF U P

2004-04-01

AMAR SARAN, SUSHIL HARKAULI

body2004
We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A. G. A. 2. The S. S. P. Agra passed an order dated 27-12-2001 (Annexure 3) for providing a shadow to the petitioner on payment by the petitioner of 100% of the expenses. 3. This petition has been filed for directing the respondents to continuously provide security to the petitioner in pursuance of the order dated 27-12-2001 passed by the S. S. P. Agra, free of cost, and without compelling the petitioner to make deposits at the rate of Rs. 12,995 per month for the said purpose. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Government Order dated 23-4-2001, Annexure-S. A. 1 to the supplementary affidavit, which fixes criteria for different categories of claimants for security, and for levying charges for the same. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the last category dealt within the said G. O. , which relates to granting protection or security to the witness of a serious crime. According to the G. O. such matters are to be examined by a committee headed by the District Magistrate. That district level committee has to decide whether protection should be given, and if so to what extent and whether against payment or free of cost. The amount of payment is also to be determined by the committee. 6. The report sent by the SSP which has been enclosed with the writ petition as Annexure 1 dated 23-3- 2000 indicates that danger to the safety of the petitioner has been apprehended not because he is witness to any serious crime, but due to his doing the work of a colonizer because of which he may be at danger from his rivals. It is also reported that his financial condition is sound and he owns licensed SBBL gun. 7. According to the categories given in the G. O. dated 23-4-2001 it appears that security is to be provided to persons who are rendering public service and who are at risk on account of rendering such public service. The witness in a criminal case is not compensated for the time that he spends in giving evidence and therefore, a witness in a State prosecution can also be said to be rendering public service by appearing as a witness. 8. The witness in a criminal case is not compensated for the time that he spends in giving evidence and therefore, a witness in a State prosecution can also be said to be rendering public service by appearing as a witness. 8. In case of other persons if the said committee recommends for security, the same can be provided at 100% cost according to the said G. O. dated 23-4-2001. According to clause 6 of the G. O. , ordinarily security is provided for one month on the recommendation of the district level committee. This period can be extended up to a maximum period of 3 months at that level. For any additional period beyond 3 months, only the State Government is empowered to take such a decision on the recommendation of the district level committee. In this case the date of incident when an attempt was said to have been made on the life of the petitioner was 29-7-1999. Even the recommendation by the district level committee headed by the D. M. was last made on 17-12-2001. There is no right of the petitioner to enjoy this privilege ad infinitum. It is regrettable that on flimsy grounds people exercise undue influence and manage to secure gunners and security at State expense and at tax payers cost. In fact acquisition of a gunner has begun to be treated as a status symbol. This practice must be brought to an end. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner is entitled as a matter of right to be provided a security guard at State expense or at reduced cost. 9. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that some other persons similarly situate as the petitioner have been provided security at reduced costs, cannot entitle the petitioner to a writ to that effect as it is well settled that one wrong decision cannot entitle other persons to the discretionary relief of writ forcing the respondent to give the same incorrect decision in respect of the petitioner also. Further, in respect of those persons whose cases have been mentioned at Annexure 5 to the writ petition, the State Government and not the district level committee appears to have passed the order granting security at reduced cost. This order was also only passed for a period of three months. Further, in respect of those persons whose cases have been mentioned at Annexure 5 to the writ petition, the State Government and not the district level committee appears to have passed the order granting security at reduced cost. This order was also only passed for a period of three months. We do not know the circumstances in which those other persons have been provided security on modified terms by the State. In such circumstances, and without the petitioner clearly establishing a legal right, the argument of discrimination cannot be sustained. 10. In view of the above, we do not find any good ground to issue the writ prayed for. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The interim order dated 24-1-2002 is vacated. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Petition dismissed. .