( 1 ) BY virtue of this writ petition, the petitioner-Sri Ramvir upadhyay, presently a Member of Legislative Assembly of Uttar pradesh and an ex-Cabinet Minister, has prayed for a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to provide to him z+ security. An another writ in the nature of Mandamus is also sought for, restraining the respondents from withdrawing the y scale security provided to him until provision for z security is made. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving raise to this writ application may be recapitulated as below:- ( 3 ) THE petitioner is a sitting M. L. A. from Bahujan Samajwadi party having contested and won the election from Hathras assembly Constituency of the then District Mahamaya Nagar, which has recently been abolished and merged in the district of aligarh. In May, 2002, he was sworn in as a Cabinet Minister with the portfolio of power and Energy. Looking to the persisting threat perception and several past attempts made on his life, he has been continuously demanding for the z category protection but the state Government in the year 2002 had taken a decision to provide to him in his individual capacity the y category security only. ( 4 ) THE Government reiterated the above decision, while issuing the Order dated 26th February, 2003, in which seven persons including the petitioner were placed in y category. However, while pressing his need for z category, the petitioner wrote letters to the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime minister and also the Chief Minister of the State. The Prime minister and the Deputy Prime Minister both acknowledged his letters and assured an early action in the matter. The petitioners request was referred to the concerned authorities but without bearing any result. Even the reminders did not bring any fruits. In the meantime, the petitioner ceased to be a Minister following the change of the Government and since he did not succumb to the pressure to leave Bahujan Samaj Party with a view to join another political party, he was conveyed rather threatened of his security being withdrawn. The petitioner, however, could not reconcile with the Governments proposed decision that the threat to his life which he apprehended so long as he was Minister has now withered away. The petitioner, however, could not reconcile with the Governments proposed decision that the threat to his life which he apprehended so long as he was Minister has now withered away. As a matter of fact, it was the discriminatory attitude of the authorities while proceeding to withdraw the y category security. The Government is legally bound to provide adequate securities to all its citizens - of course, keeping in view the danger to their lives. The petitioner being a political person having numerous arch rivals is under constant danger to his life. ( 5 ) IN the year 1993, when he contested election from hathras constituency, the opposition candidate Shri Rajvir Singh Pahalwan having a criminal record won the seat. The petitioner feared a life threat from the said opponent. Therefore, he informed the then government of his apprehension and after formal enquiry, the intelligence Report revealed that indeed there was danger to the life of the petitioner and his family. ( 6 ) THE petitioner is a Lawyer by profession and he has been practicing law in District Courts of Ghaziabad. During the election of 1993, he was provided with the security of five Constables besides one Sub-Inspector. During elections, on 27th November, 1993, the petitioner was attacked before counting of votes. Although he survived the attack yet one of his relatives, namely, gopal Sharma died and an another supporter suffered serious injuries with amputation of his left hand. An F. I. R. was lodged at the Hathras Police Station and the culprits were charge-sheeted by the police. Amongst those who were charge-sheeted were Brijendra (Bhura) and the opposition candidate, who eventually won the election. Following this occurrence, the petitioner was provided with two Gunners on the Government cost. ( 7 ) ANOTHER attempt on his life was made on 3rd September, 1994 when the petitioner was busy with his political activities in hathras. He escaped again as he had two Gunners with him. An f. I. R. of this incident was also lodged. Sometime after, a government Order was issued to withdraw all Gunners from the political persons but the Senior Superintendent of Police made suitable arrangements to protect the petitioners life as well as his family. ( 8 ) THE petitioner also met the Chief Minister, who restored the security to him. An f. I. R. of this incident was also lodged. Sometime after, a government Order was issued to withdraw all Gunners from the political persons but the Senior Superintendent of Police made suitable arrangements to protect the petitioners life as well as his family. ( 8 ) THE petitioner also met the Chief Minister, who restored the security to him. Yet one more occurrence took place on 9th November, 1994, when the petitioner was on way from Aligarh to Hathras. His rivals and criminal fired bullets on his Maruti Car but luckily he escaped this time also. An F. I. R. of this incident was also lodged. The intelligence Report of 10th July, 1994, which is on the record of government, shows that the petitioner needed constant protection of his life. In the occurrence of 9th November, 1994, the petitioners gunner-Raj Pal Singh Yadav used his gun and fired sixteen rounds for protection of the petitioners life. ( 9 ) IN this background, the then Chief Minister of U. P. issued orders to the Secretary (Home) for providing two Gunners for a period of three months. The provision of two Gunners was carried on in the successive year also. ( 10 ) IN the meantime, a special enquiry was conducted by the superintendent of Police which revealed that the petitioner was facing great danger to his life. In spite of this fact, his rival Rajvir singh Pahalwan exerted his influence on the Senior superintendent of Police, Aligarh to withdraw the petitioners gunneers/shadows. The Senior Superintendent of Police succumbed to his pressure and withdrew the facility of Gunners. ( 11 ) BEING compelled by these circumstances, the petitioner filed writ Petition No. 23769 of 1995 and a Division Bench of this Court vide its Order of 21st September, 1995, directed to continue the same security to the petitioner as had been provided to him earlier. ( 12 ) WITH the petitioners growing popularity and increasing political rivalry, the number of his security personnel was increased with the result that in the Assembly Election of 1996, three Gunners, four Constables and one Sub-Inspector with wireless guard were provided to him. A few months thereafter, the number of Gunners was increased to four and provision for a constant companion of police Sub-Inspector and one Guard with ak-47 rifle was also made to secure the life of the petitioner. A few months thereafter, the number of Gunners was increased to four and provision for a constant companion of police Sub-Inspector and one Guard with ak-47 rifle was also made to secure the life of the petitioner. Even then, the petitioner came across a conspiracy, hatched to eliminate the petitioner by Bhupendra Singh, Rajvir Singh and Dharmvir singh and with a view to implement the said mischievous plan, four criminals in a Gypsy Jeep were sent in the residential area of the petitioner in Hathras but with the police being contacted well in time an untoward incident was averted. A news item about this happening had been published in amar Ujala on 28th November, 1997. Despite every possible risk to the petitioners life, the companion Sub-Inspector attached with the petitioner was withdrawn and the Head-Constable armed with AK-47 rifle was also removed from his security. ( 13 ) IN such compelling situation, the petitioner approached the home Minister of the Central Government for providing to him z+ security and although the then Home Minister faxed a message to the State Government of Uttar Pradesh to ensure security and safety of the petitioner yet no heed was paid. ( 14 ) THE petitioner and his wife then filed another Writ Petition no. 44316 of 1997 praying for a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the State of Uttar Pradesh to provide him z+ security. The said writ petition remained pending for a number of years and during its pendency, intervened the February, 2002 Legislative assembly Election for the State in which the petitioner contested from Hathras Constituency and won again and eventually, he was sworn in as Cabinet Minister of the Government of Uttar Pradesh. Despite the fact of his being a Cabinet Minister, the petitioner continued to reiterate his old request for seeking z+ security. ( 15 ) THE Additional Director General of Police, Headquarters of vigilance by means of letter dated 3rd June, 2002 indicated the name of the petitioner in y category security. ( 16 ) IN the meantime, the U. P. Government filed its counter-affidavit in the aforesaid writ petition and recited therein that in view of threat perception to him and his family members, one gunner had been provided to the petitioners wife on payment of 10% cost and provision for y security made for the petitioner. ( 16 ) IN the meantime, the U. P. Government filed its counter-affidavit in the aforesaid writ petition and recited therein that in view of threat perception to him and his family members, one gunner had been provided to the petitioners wife on payment of 10% cost and provision for y security made for the petitioner. ( 17 ) AFTER the BSP Government resigned, the petitioner was again placed in a situation of imminent danger to his life as his y category security had been withdrawn. Now, the petitioner has been continuously receiving threats from his political rivals and the criminal elements under a well-planned conspiracy to eliminate him. The petitioners representation dated 27th August, 2003 did not decrease the gravity of the petitioners apprehension. ( 18 ) IT is in these compelling circumstances that the petitioner is obliged to file this petition praying for twofold writ in the nature of mandamus - the first being regarding provision of z+ security for him and the other commanding the respondents not to withdraw the y scale security, till z category security is provided. ( 19 ) THE opposite-parties resisted this petition by filing a counter-affidavit of Sri C. P. Singh, the Deputy Secretary, Home department, Government of U. P. Sri Singh asserted that the allegations of the petitioner that his y scale security had been withdrawn on account of the political vendetta is patently wrong and illegal inasmuch as the said category security was provided to him in his capacity as a Minister and not as an individual. In view of the recent investigation of threat perception to the petitioners life, a decision has been taken to provide him security of a Gunner after withdrawing the y category security. According to the governments Policy the facility of Shadow/gunner/guard is provided to those persons who do not have any criminal history and further, there is no possibility of the misuse of the said facility. The petitioner and other family members are the licence holders of various firearms like Revolver, S. B. B. L. Gun, 315 Bore Rifle and d. B. B. L. Gun. Until May, 2002, the petitioner had the facility of two Gunners and when the High Court issued instructions in Writ petition No. 23769 of 1995 one more Gunner was provided to him. Until May, 2002, the petitioner had the facility of two Gunners and when the High Court issued instructions in Writ petition No. 23769 of 1995 one more Gunner was provided to him. ( 20 ) THE Deputy Secretary stated further that after the petitioner was sworn in as Energy Minister in May, 2002, the Government sanctioned y category security for him on the basis of recommendations made by the security headquarters. The said category security was continued upto February, 2003. The superintendent of Police, Mahamaya Nagar submitted a report dated 31st October, 2003 and recommended that in view of their being several licensed firearms with the petitioner and his family members, his economical status, threat perception to his life and action taken against those who were alleged to be his rivals, there was no need to carry on the y category security with the petitioner and when even y category was not required, there was no question of providing z+ category security. The said recommendation of the Superintendent of Police was considered by the Sate Level Security Committee known as Rajya Stariya suraksh Samiti and a decision was taken that the y category security provided to the petitioner might be withdrawn. It was on the basis of the decision taken by the Samiti that the State government issued Orders dated 14/17. 11. 2003 withdrawing the y category security provided to the petitioner. The Superintendent of Police submitted yet one another report dated 4th December, 2003 that the petitioner had a criminal history and therefore, there was no need to provide any specific security to him. In fact, the issue pertaining to protection and security of individuals lies entirely within the domain of the State Government to adjudicate upon and every individual case has to be scrutinized keeping in view various factors including the availability of the police personnel and financial resources of the State. In the case of the petitioner, there is no such imminent danger to his life as he has been reported by the District Authorities and further he has a criminal background also. The petitioner has been provided one gunner in addition to two others, in compliance to the order passed by the High Court. His wife has been provided with a facility of yet one more Gunner. The petitioner has been provided one gunner in addition to two others, in compliance to the order passed by the High Court. His wife has been provided with a facility of yet one more Gunner. ( 21 ) AS regards reports and recommendation for providing y category security to the petitioner, it has been alleged by the deputy Secretary, Sri C. P. Singh that the petitioner being a minister succeeded in manipulating things in his way. The old incidents of the years 1993 and 1994 have no threat bearing in the present circumstances. Shri Bhupendra Singh, who was said to be behind the petitioners blood is not now alive and therefore, there could be no risk to the petitioner or his family from the said opponent. ( 22 ) AS a matter of fact, Sri Singh added further, the petitioner being an Advocate moved various representations to create evidence for grant of security although the fact was that there was no threat to him. Soon after the petitioner was sworn in as a minister, he had immediately withdrawn the writ petition filed by him as all the Government machinery came into his clutches and since he was an influential Minister of the Government, he got the writ Petition withdrawn after he succeeded in getting the facility of y category security from the Government. That facility was provided to him, as said earlier, in his official capacity and not in individual capacity. Provision for the y category security to the petitioner or any individual burdens heavily on the State exchequer and further when the District Level and State Level Committees have consistently taken a decision that there was no imminent danger to the petitioners life, there was no propriety in carrying on with the said security for the petitioner. However, the Additional director General (Security) during the pendency of this petition directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh to continue the y category security with the petitioner. ( 23 ) IN view of these grounds, the opposite-parties have submitted that the petitioners prayers are not tenable in the eyes of law and therefore, the reliefs sought by him are liable to be rejected. ( 24 ) THE petitioner filed his rejoinder to the counter-affidavit of the Government and denied that he has criminal background. ( 23 ) IN view of these grounds, the opposite-parties have submitted that the petitioners prayers are not tenable in the eyes of law and therefore, the reliefs sought by him are liable to be rejected. ( 24 ) THE petitioner filed his rejoinder to the counter-affidavit of the Government and denied that he has criminal background. He, however, stated that only one criminal case of Crime No. 142 of 1998 is pending against him and in that case too, charges levelled against him under Sections 307 and 395 I. P. C. have been deleted. As regards his brothers having licence firearms, he stated that all his brothers are living separately, doing their separate business at different places, therefore, the arms being possessed by them are of no use to him. He assailed the report dated 31st October, 2003 submitted by the Superintendent of Police on the basis of which the State Level Committee has withdrawn his security protection. It was a unilateral report without there being any concurrence of the District Magistrate. Shri Alok Kumar Singh, the District magistrate rather submitted a different report a little earlier on 27th september, 2003 and expressed his different view that the petitioner needed a strong security protection; although he was punished for submission of this report with his immediate transfer from the district. As the threat perception to the petitioner from his rivals, enemies and criminals still subsists, the Government has to take decision objectively and this being a case of extraordinary and exceptional nature, it would always be within the domain of the court to interfere in the matter. ( 25 ) WE have heard Mr. S. C. Misra, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S. S. Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate general assisted by Mr. S. N. Shukla, learned Additional Chief standing Counsel. ( 26 ) MR. Chauhan has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this writ petition and contended that the issue pertaining to security for protection of life of individuals and citizens comes within the ambit of executives jurisdiction and therefore, the Court, while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not interfere with the exercise of the said jurisdiction. Chauhan has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this writ petition and contended that the issue pertaining to security for protection of life of individuals and citizens comes within the ambit of executives jurisdiction and therefore, the Court, while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not interfere with the exercise of the said jurisdiction. ( 27 ) IN support of his contention, learned Additional Advocate general referred to two citations of this Court, namely, Ram Asrey singh v. State of U. P. and others - Writ Petition No. 2810 (MB)of 1999 and Rai Sing v. State of U. P. and others - Writ petition No. 615 (MB) of 2000. The copies of both the decisions have been filed for perusal of the court. ( 28 ) THE decision in the former case was delivered on 17th august, 1999 by a Division Bench of this Court. Its perusal would reveal that the question regarding grant of security was held to be within the domain of State Government and this Court was considered to be not in a position to order for providing security to any person. Further, this Court held that the State Government shall decide the question regarding grant of security after taking into consideration the threat perception and after satisfying whether the security is needed to the person concerned or not. No doubt, the Court expressed the said view but there was no ratio decidendi that this Court under no circumstances can exercise its power in the matter of providing security to the citizens. The following observation of the Division Bench in that case, would point to the conclusion that in a certain set of circumstances, the court is quite competent to use its discretionary power and direct the Government to provide security:-". . . However, the Court can, in imminent situation or in extraordinary exceptional cases, exercise its discretion to provide security. In the instant case, the petitioner has given an application in the month of June, 1999 for grant of security cover and it appears that while withdrawing the security, the said application has not been taken into consideration nor any reason has been given in the order. In the instant case, the petitioner has given an application in the month of June, 1999 for grant of security cover and it appears that while withdrawing the security, the said application has not been taken into consideration nor any reason has been given in the order. " ( 29 ) IT is, thus obvious that this Court is not debarred itself from exercising its power of issuing appropriate writs or directions in the genuine cases particularly when it is established from the record that the security of a person is in jeopardy and it requires interference of the Court, looking to the citizens fundamental right of life and personal liberty. It appears from a bare reading of this citation that the Government had withdrawn the security of the police Officer, Mr. Ram Asrey Singh after he retired from service and while issuing orders for withdrawal of the Gunner facility, the petitioners application for issuance of the security was not taken into consideration. ( 30 ) KEEPING the aspect of the opportunity of hearing having not been offered to the petitioner, this Court issued mandatory directions to the State Government to consider the petitioners application for providing security to him as he had consistent apprehension and danger to his life. With these directions, the petitioners writ application was finally disposed of. ( 31 ) IN the other citation of Rai Singh (supra), an I. A. S. Officer, who was provided z category security looking to the threat perception to his life felt aggrieved of the Governments decision withdrawing that protection cover, although the State security with the provision of a Gunner cover was extended to him. Scanning the entire situation, as pleaded by the aforesaid officer and the pleas of the Government, this Court held that the petitioner occupied an important position and in case his security provided to him by means of the impugned order, was insufficient, he could approach the Principal Secretary (Home) and the Chief Secretary, who might pass appropriate orders. It was held further that this Court should not stroll into a field which is exclusively meant for the executive authorities, which can decide such question. It was held further that this Court should not stroll into a field which is exclusively meant for the executive authorities, which can decide such question. However, the court was of the view that in case, it is established that there was actual threat to his life, it will always be open to the State Government to review the matter and provide security to the petitioner in accordance with its resources and threat perception. ( 32 ) IN other words, the Court declined to issue a writ of mandamus as there was no threat perception to him but there was no finding or conclusion that it was not within the jurisdiction of the Court to interfere in a case, where it was necessary to do so. ( 33 ) THIS Court in another decision rakesh Srivatava "nyayik" v. Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi and others [1998 all C J 821] intervened in the matter of providing security to the citizens and issued directions to the Government to restore the protection of the State security to the petitioner. The petition for request regarding grant of armed licence to him and cancellation of armed licence to his ( 38 ) IN the modern era, as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there are chaotic conditions prevailing in the society; criminals are flourishing with security covers - direct or indirect of influential persons; militants are operating here and there in all parts of the State; numerous gangs or unwanted elements are indulging in gang wars; people are being eliminated either out of revenge or with a view to settle scores; political heavy weights are using the services of criminals and eliminating their opponents either for gain or position, money or status; the crime graph is increasing day-by-day; political animosity and rivalry have become a routine feature of the society and there is instability so far as the security and safety of the members of the society and their properties are concerned. Every now and then highly placed officials in the Government Circles or in the Government are for various motives being eliminated. Every now and then highly placed officials in the Government Circles or in the Government are for various motives being eliminated. In such a scenario, the right to life certainly includes the right to protection of ones life and a provision of security at the cost of the State or on payment seems to be an imminent necessity in deserving cases - for which if the state fails, the Court certainly would come to the rescue of the needy citizens. ( 39 ) FOLLOWING this view, this Court held in pramod Tiwari v. State of U. P. [1999 (17) LCD-124] that it is the bounden duty of the State Government to review the provision of security with vision and must not reject the genuine claim for ordinary reasons. It may be pertinent to quote the following observations which are very relevant from our present point of view:-"the categorization of the security grades and the threat perception are not supposed to be static and, therefore, a regular review of the aforesaid categories so as to increase or decrease security deployment on the basis of threat evaluation is to take place and for this purpose a committee consisting of representatives of the State special Branch, Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau and the state Home Department has been constituted which is to meet every three months for reviewing the security arrangements on the basis of threat perception. The committee is required to review the matters in such a manner that the tendency to perpetuate the security arrangements in the absence of threat because of political pressures or other extraneous considerations should be avoided for one simple reason that the expensiveness of the security locomotion sometimes is scandalizing. Unhappy reality is that the demand for security is not as much for the personal security, but has ripened into a status symbol. It is enjoyed not as cathedral but as casino. Therefore, an onerous duty is cast on the high powered committee to review the security arrangements - either to decrease or increase the same - in a most objective, bona fide and honest manner. Any order, which may be in an authoritarian defiance of administrative fair play on the basis of general, sweeping, scrappy sketchy and jumpy reports submitted by the official minions is not to receive the approval of the court. Any order, which may be in an authoritarian defiance of administrative fair play on the basis of general, sweeping, scrappy sketchy and jumpy reports submitted by the official minions is not to receive the approval of the court. " ( 40 ) INDEED, this Court will have no parameters or standards to gauge the security measures of a particular person as the matter for providing security depends upon various reports of various authorities and not one but a committee of highly placed officials need to scrutinize the demand for grant or continuance of the security cover. In the aforesaid case, the Court very rightly observed that shorn of all political overtones made by the petitioner, the fact remains, however political visionary, unsullied democrat and tireless patriot the petitioner may be, the security is to be provided to him by the State in proportion to the threat perception. The court, inspite of itsawesome panoply is motionless in the sphere - it has no yardstick to get measured or gauge the threat perception. This aspect of the matter, of necessity, has to be determined and ascertained with the help of the reports of the various intelligence and security agencies deployed for the purpose. ( 41 ) ON having reviewed the documentary evidence before it, the court in the aforesaid case arrived at a conclusion that continuance of z category security to the petitioner-Sri Pramod tiwari shall continue, until a final decision would be taken on the threat perception to the personal security of the petitioner. ( 42 ) YET in another case (Writ Petition No. 3055 (MB) of 2003)filed by an ex-Chief Minister, this Court reiterating its earlier direction passed in Writ Petition No. 820 (MB) of 1998, issued a writ of Mandamus keeping in view the threat perception to the petitioners life. The armed guard was withdrawn from the residence of the ex-Chief Minister, following which a shooting incident took place in which the ex-Chief Minister escaped but his private assistant suffered firearm injuries. The armed guard was withdrawn from the residence of the ex-Chief Minister, following which a shooting incident took place in which the ex-Chief Minister escaped but his private assistant suffered firearm injuries. Considering all other factors including the background of the firing incident which took place after withdrawal of the security cover, this Court held that there was a threat perception to the life of the petitioner which was imminent and therefore, taking into consideration the said aspect of the matter, the Court issued an interim Mandamus that the petitioner shall be provided with an armed guard within 48 hours. The State Level Committee was directed to take a fresh decision in that case and when the security was restored in compliance to the courts Orders, the writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 21st July, 2003 by a Division Bench of this Court. ( 43 ) IN the above backdrop of the legal compass, we are not inclined to uphold the contention that this Court will not interfere in the matter of security claim required by the individual citizens or ex-Ministers even though their life is in danger and there is an imminent threat perception to their survival. ( 44 ) KEEPING all aspects of the matter in view, we are of the opinion that this Court in genuine and deserving cases, as has been done earlier, shall provide constitutional protection while exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a view to ensure that not only the Ministers, ex-Ministers, bureaucrats or a private citizen - all have a fundamental right to live which includes a right to protection of their/his life with security cover to be provided by the State. Needless to say that it is imperative for the State to provide security to every individual and citizen. To put it differently, the State is under an obligation to protect the life and property of its citizens and any apathy in the matter is to be ridiculed. This Court observed in Pramod Tiwaris case (supra) that,"the democracy is converted into a counterfeit currency if personal security is devalued politically and it further says that the dilemma of security, illusions and realities, needs to be resolved without hypocrisy or political hue. This Court observed in Pramod Tiwaris case (supra) that,"the democracy is converted into a counterfeit currency if personal security is devalued politically and it further says that the dilemma of security, illusions and realities, needs to be resolved without hypocrisy or political hue. Our democratic polity will be robbed of its finer values if our leaders are covertly and overtly downgraded in actual fact whatever the double speak of said power operators be. " ( 45 ) THEREFORE, we have to look into the prayer of the petitioner sri Ramvir Upadhyay, who is an ex-Cabinet Minister, who, as is apparent from the material on record, has been running here and there seeking full protection of his life and requesting all concerned, namely, Principal Secretary (Home), U. P. Government, director General of Police, Head of the State, Home Secretary of the central Government and Prime Minister also. He has been experiencing threat perception from the very inception of his political career and is continuously living his life under the said threat. The petitioner has narrated not one but numerous incidents in which he luckily escaped unhurt. Recounting his first such incident, he has asserted in para 20 of his petition that on november 27, 1993 when he was contesting from Hathras segment of the Legislative Assembly, an armed attack was made on his vehicle before the counting of votes and in that shooting spree one of his attendants, who was also his relative, namely Gopal Sharma died of the bullet injuries and another supporter suffered grievous injuries which resulted in amputation of his left hand. An F. I. R. , copy whereof is Annexure 9 on record, was lodged by the petitioners brother. ( 46 ) FOLLOWING this incident, the security cover was provided to him and what is significant to note is that one of the persons charge-sheeted in the aforesaid murder and attempt to murder case, was the local elected Member of Legislative Assembly. This is how his political rivalry started. Two Gunners provided to the petitioner for his safety and security served as deterrent to his rivals but then criminal endeavoured to make their way and attempted an assault on him on 3rd September, 1994, although the gunners well-served as his rescuers. His security Gunners opened fire and forced the criminals to flee away. Two Gunners provided to the petitioner for his safety and security served as deterrent to his rivals but then criminal endeavoured to make their way and attempted an assault on him on 3rd September, 1994, although the gunners well-served as his rescuers. His security Gunners opened fire and forced the criminals to flee away. A report, copy whereof is annexure 12 on record, was lodged at the Police Station Aligarh, i. e. the place where the petitioner stays to work in his Hathras constituency. It may be relevant to mention that Hathras legislative Constituency is part of Aligarh district, although for some time Hathras was declared to be a separate district known as mahamaya Nagar. But at the relevant time and as on date, it was/is a Tehsil of Aligarh. ( 47 ) THE petitioner met the Chief Minister on 17th September, 1994 with an application and apprised him of the life threat to him, under which he was reeling. The Chief Minister directed the secretary, Home Department to provide to him the police protection. This endorsement of the Chief Minister is evident on the margin of the petitioners application dated 16th September, 1994 (Annexure 13 ). ( 48 ) AT that juncture, the other members of the family of the petitioner were also dragged into rivalry by some local persons of hathras. It is not necessary to go into all those details, but suffice is to mention that other members of the family were also provided security protection. ( 49 ) IN January, 1995, when Panchayat Elections were scheduled, the petitioner again requested for continuance of the security cover of two Gunners which request was conceded to by the Chief Minister. The Government vide its letter of 1st May, 1995 (Annexure 22) issued necessary instructions to the District magistrate and Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh directing them to provide to the petitioner the security cover of two Gunners. The letter dated 6th May, 1995 of local Intelligence Unit of Aligarh submitted to the Senior Superintendent of Police confirmed that the petitioner had a very strong rivalry with Rajvir Singh Pahalwan and on several occasions, the two had quarreled out of enmity subsisting between them for the quite some time. The letter dated 6th May, 1995 of local Intelligence Unit of Aligarh submitted to the Senior Superintendent of Police confirmed that the petitioner had a very strong rivalry with Rajvir Singh Pahalwan and on several occasions, the two had quarreled out of enmity subsisting between them for the quite some time. However, in june, 1995, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh had withdrawn both the Gunners without disclosing any reason or even communicating to the petitioner about the decision taken by him. A copy of the unreasoned letter dated 9th June, 1995 is Annexure 21 on record. The petitioner, in the circumstances of abrupt withdrawal of his security, was obliged to file a Writ Petition No. 23769 of 1995 before the Allahabad High Court at Allahabad and a division Bench of this Court passed the following order:-"heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. Three weeks time as prayed is granted to file the counter affidavit. In the meanwhile, the security as provided earlier to both the petitioners, shall be provided until the disposal of this petition. List this case on 30. 10. 1995. " ( 50 ) APPARENTLY, the Court protected the petitioners security cover and also that of his wife, as they had a threat perception, the subsistence of which was duly confirmed by the Senior superintendent of Police vide his recommendation of May 6, 1995. A period of two years elapsed after the aforesaid order when the petitioner again experienced imminent danger to his life and he had to file another Writ Petition No. 44316 of 1997, again following the authorities decision to withdraw his security. The period of two years too in between the filing of the two writ petitions was not quiet for the petitioner. . ( 51 ) IN the State Assembly Election of 1996, the petitioner again contested from his Hathras Constituency and won the seat as b. S. P. candidate. This time his arch rival Rajvir Singh Pahalwan suffered a defeat at his hand. During the elections, the government had reasons to believe that there was a constant danger to his life because of his growing political popularity and therefore, he was provided with three Gunners, four Constables and one Sub-Inspector with wireless guard. This time his arch rival Rajvir Singh Pahalwan suffered a defeat at his hand. During the elections, the government had reasons to believe that there was a constant danger to his life because of his growing political popularity and therefore, he was provided with three Gunners, four Constables and one Sub-Inspector with wireless guard. Soon after the elections, the petitioner was sworn in as a Cabinet Minister but even after having acquired that position, he had restless nights as his another political rival Sri Hari Shankar Mahar, who was allotted Room No. 42 situated close to the petitioners Room No. 52 of the Royal Hotel planned a conspiracy against him and the petitioner saw two persons namely, Bhupendra Singh, a notorious criminal and a history sheeter staying with Hari Shankar Mahar. ( 52 ) ON 23rd May, 1996, one of the petitioners political supporters Sri Dilip Sharma was shot dead in the open market near Kotwali at Hathras, but the culprits could not be apprehended because of the political influence of Rajvir Singh pahalwan and Hari Shankr Mahar. Bhupendra Singh was the main accused in the said murder case. After a long lapse of time, bhupendra Singh was arrested but his two associates managed to escape. Following this incident, the petitioners security was accelerated and a Sub-Inspector with one Guard armed with AK-47 rifle was included in his security fleet. ( 53 ) WITH the collapse of the then Government in September, 1997, the petitioner ceased to be a Minister. On 22nd November, 1997, the petitioner noticed four criminals armed with AK-47 rifles roaming in Gypsy NO. DL-3ca-3075 in the vicinity of the petitioners office-cum-residence at Hathras. The petitioner received Intelligence Reports that these criminals were hired to eliminate him. A news-item published in daily paper of amar ujala on 28th November, 1997 and a report was lodged with the police, whereupon all the four criminals alongwith Gypsy were arrested. The said Gypsy was found to have been stolen from delhi. These happenings clearly support the petitioners case that throughout his political career he was under constant danger to his life. ( 54 ) IN October, 1997, the local police taking advantage of the petitioners receding position, who was merely an M. L. A. at that juncture took a decision to withdraw his security leaving only a gunner with him. These happenings clearly support the petitioners case that throughout his political career he was under constant danger to his life. ( 54 ) IN October, 1997, the local police taking advantage of the petitioners receding position, who was merely an M. L. A. at that juncture took a decision to withdraw his security leaving only a gunner with him. However, the Superintendent of Police, Maha maya Nagar (Hathras) on the request of the petitioner with the averment of there being a serious danger to his life permitted the sub-Inspector attached with him to continue for some time. But on 22nd November, 1997 the Sub-Inspector and Constable armed with ak-47 rifle were both withdrawn from his security cover. ( 55 ) THE petitioner wrote a letter to the then Home Minister Sri indrajeet Gupta apprising him of the mounting danger to his life and requested for z+ category. The Home Minister wrote to the chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh reminding him of the Governments obligation to provide protection and security to its citizens including the petitioner. A copy of the fax message is Annexure 30 on record. A part of the said letter may be quoted below:-"you will appreciate that providing security to VIPs as well as ordinary citizens is the responsibility of the State government. In view of the security threat that has been faced by S/sri Naseemuddin Siddiqui and Ramvir upadhyay, I would request you to personally look into the matter and provide them with adequate security. " ( 56 ) IT may be understood from the above contents of the Home ministers letter that the petitioner was under a serious threat and may be that before writing the letter, the Home Minister might have either acquired some Intelligence Reports or he might have acted upon his own personal knowledge after having consultations with concerned authorities. However, because of the political differences here and there, the security cover was not restored as a result of which the petitioner confined himself to the safe places, as a consequence his social activities came to standstill. ( 57 ) THE Office of the Home Minister, Central Government was approached again by the petitioners wife and the O. S. D. attached with the Home Minister informed the petitioners wife that enquiries were being made to provide z+ security to her husband. ( 57 ) THE Office of the Home Minister, Central Government was approached again by the petitioners wife and the O. S. D. attached with the Home Minister informed the petitioners wife that enquiries were being made to provide z+ security to her husband. Annexure 31 is the copy of the letter of O. S. D. However, since no action was taken either by the Central Government or the State government, the petitioner had no alternative except to approach this Court by filing another Writ Petition No. 44316 of 1997. During pendency of the said writ petition, the tenure of the legislative Assembly of the State expired and a general election was held in February, 2002 in which the petitioner again contested from his old constituency and he was declared as victorious by thumping majority. After he became a Minister again, he was provided with the appropriate security but he had to make a request for that. The State Government having obtained the reports from various agencies including Intelligence Bureau provided him y scale security with a provision of two Gunners for the security of his wife, who was also elected as Zila Panchayat adhyaksh of district Maha Maya Nagar. This y scale category security is now proposed to be withdrawn. ( 58 ) LEARNED Additional Advocate General contended before us that the threat perception, the petitioner had apprehended has now withered away, as the District Authorities particularly the report of the police officers have recommended for withdrawal of the said security. In this context, it would be relevant to observe that the threat perception to ones life cannot be said to wither away over night or within a short span of time. It takes a longer time for the hostility to set-off and subside. The petitioner, who had not one but various political opponents and he had taken some strong decisions as power Minister, therefore, may still be reeling under the same threat. It would be confirmed from the reports, which were submitted by the police in the years 2002 and 2003 that before he filed the petition in hand, he had a strong threat perception to his life. In this regard, a reference has to be made to the District Magistrates Report of 27th September, 2003, which has been filed by the petitioner alongwith his rejoinder affidavit. In this regard, a reference has to be made to the District Magistrates Report of 27th September, 2003, which has been filed by the petitioner alongwith his rejoinder affidavit. It clearly recites that on account of political rivalry, the petitioner is still going under the perception of threat to his life and therefore, the existing security protection was recommended not to be withdrawn. ( 59 ) BEFORE we would discuss at this juncture vis-vis the reports of the other authorities, it would be relevant to refer to the supplementary counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Government in the petitioners Writ Petition No. 44316 of 1997. Paragraph 5 is important from our present point of view. It may be quoted as below:-"that the State Government has thoroughly examined the matter of providing adequate security to the petitioner after obtaining requisite details and after taking into account the threat perception to the life of the petitioners, the State Government has decided to provide one Gunner to the petitioner No. 1 (petitioners wife) on payment of 10% cost and y scale security to the petitioner No. 2, Sri Ramvir Upadhyay. The above security has been decided to provide to them in their individual capacity and the status and not in any official capacity. A copy of Order No. 3297 dated 21st september, 2002 is being filed herewith and marked as annexure CA 1 to this affidavit. " ( 60 ) IT is significant to note that this counter-affidavit was submitted by a Section Officer of Home Department of U. P. Government on 23rd September, 2002, i. e. about one year before the Government again took a decision in November, 2003 to withdraw his security. ( 61 ) LEARNED Additional Advocate General contended that the petitioner being the Minister might have exerted his influence and asked the Section Officer to submit the counter-affidavit in his favour. The contention does not seem to be sustainable for the simple reason that the Section Officer was not posted under the petitioner nor connected in any way with the department of power and Energy. The contention does not seem to be sustainable for the simple reason that the Section Officer was not posted under the petitioner nor connected in any way with the department of power and Energy. While perusing several police reports on the record of this file and on the administrative file of the Government, we came across that at some point of time, there was no justification for providing z security as demanded by the petitioner and further, even some letters were written by the higher police authorities asking their juniors to explain as to why more security personnel than required were deputed with the Minister. From such letters, it can well be derived that the Home Department or the police personnel were never under any sort of pressure of the petitioner, rather they were bold enough to call for explanation from their junior officers about more security persons being attached with the minister. When the police officers can do so even at the time when the petitioner was a Minister of Cabinet rank, the Home department cannot be believed to have filed its supplementary counter-affidavit under the influence of Minister. Moreover, it was merely an imaginary argument. Unless some responsible officer from the Home Ministry, if not the same Section Officer, who submitted the supplementary counter-affidavit, comes forward and say that indeed, the supplementary counter-affidavit entitling the petitioner for y category security in his individual capacity was filed under pressure, the contention cannot be accepted to be as tenable. That apart, it is immaterial if y category security cover is provided to the Minister in his official capacity or personal capacity when threat to his life persists. ( 62 ) FROM the various happenings, as referred to in the earlier part of this Judgment, it appears to be well founded that the petitioner had a threat perception to his life and there are reasons to believe that the threat perception continued even after he ceased to be a Minister. Even if one of the notorious criminals-Bhupendra singh is believed to have been killed, there is no dearth of the petitioners opponents and rivals, who would like to settle scores with him whenever they get an opportunity. The petitioner wrote letters to the Governor of the State, Home Minister of the Central government as also the Prime Minister and named the criminals, who had been heavily paid for his elimination. The petitioner wrote letters to the Governor of the State, Home Minister of the Central government as also the Prime Minister and named the criminals, who had been heavily paid for his elimination. These letters are on record. Their perusal clearly indicates that the petitioner is having a feeling of danger to his life and his apprehension cannot be said to be without any substance as the then District Magistrate of maha Maya Nagar vide his letter of July 30, 2003 (Annexure 37)had recommended that looking to the threat perception to the petitioners life, it was desirable to provide him a z special category protection. The District Magistrate requested for relaxation of the standard norms prescribed for the various categories of security cover to be provided to the V. I. Ps or citizens. The same District Magistrate submitted another report on 27th september, 2003, i. e. at the juncture when the petitioner had already ceased to be a Minister and recommended that looking into the political rivalry of the petitioner and the threat perception to his life, he may be provided with adequate security. However, the superintendent of Police of the district Maha Maya Nagar sent a different report on 21st October, 2003 and recommended for withdrawal of the y category security basically on two grounds that there were some criminal cases pending against the Minister and the petitioner himself is a licence holder of a firearm and his other family members are also firearm licence holders. The inconsistent reports of the two district authorities clearly indicate lack of bona fides on the part of the administration and it appears that the Superintendent of Police submitted the manipulated reports. ( 63 ) THE petitioner has submitted in his rejoinder affidavit that most of the cases filed against him emanated out of his political rivalry and except one, all those cases have been disposed of. So pendency of a criminal case or more should not have provided a reasonable basis now to withdraw the petitioners security. A perusal of the list of the cases referred to in the Superintendent of polices report (Annexure 41) would reveal that cases were filed against the petitioner in 1994, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2002. So pendency of a criminal case or more should not have provided a reasonable basis now to withdraw the petitioners security. A perusal of the list of the cases referred to in the Superintendent of polices report (Annexure 41) would reveal that cases were filed against the petitioner in 1994, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2002. Whenever there is an incident of shooting spree, the petitioner and his rivals filed criminal cases against each other and this is how the list of cases against the petitioner went on increasing. But now the petitioners averment that only one criminal case is pending goes unrebutted and therefore, there is no reason that pendency of criminal cases rather old criminal cases in past must have given some plausible basis for the Superintendent of Police, Maha Maya nagar to submit his report on 31st October, 2003 against the petitioner. ( 64 ) THE other reason of the petitioner being a licence firearm holder is also insignificant as it is an open secret that these days the hardened criminals remain in possession of modern weapons like AK-47 assault rifles. How they acquire such deadly weapons may be a secret but it is open that the notorious criminals somehow manage to acquire and hold these firearms, in the corruption-stricken Government machinery, public authorities and society. The smuggling of such arms is also possible from across the borders. What then the petitioners 32 bore licenced revolver and S. B. B. L. Gun would effectively be able to protect his life when criminals may assault with AK-47 rifles and even more sophisticated firearms. ( 65 ) IT is surprising to note that on the administrative file of the petitioner submitted by the Home Department not even a letter or report after January, 2003 has been left for perusal of the Court. It appears that the Home Department has purposely with a view to screen some realities have taken the relevant papers off the record. We notice that the file, which was retained on the Courts directions is voluminous - containing hundreds of papers including reports and letters, some of which clearly indicate the threat perception to the petitioners life but amazingly all papers after January, 2003 have been removed from the file. We notice that the file, which was retained on the Courts directions is voluminous - containing hundreds of papers including reports and letters, some of which clearly indicate the threat perception to the petitioners life but amazingly all papers after January, 2003 have been removed from the file. The Home ministry must be knowing better about the reason or reasons for which the papers have been removed but certainly there would be a justification for us to presume that removal of reports and papers have been ordered with a view to screen the facts which might be favourable to the petitioners claim for security cover. ( 66 ) A repot of the State Level Screening Committee has also not been placed for perusal of this Court - again for the reasons best known to the department. Therefore, in this context, it may be presumed that the reports of the Intelligence or police authorities might have indicated different result than taken by the State Level committee. ( 67 ) WHAT is astonishing more to take note of is that the petitioner, who was provided with y category security was proposed to be rendered helpless with the provision of a Gunner only without either communicating to him the decision of the concerned authorities or even affording an opportunity of hearing to him. It is a principle of natural justice that a person, who is being deprived of a certain right or facility should be given a chance/ opportunity to have his say about the proposal to be made. The petitioner was neither given any such opportunity nor he was even asked well in time to make his own arrangements including hiring security personnel at his own cost. It would have been better if the petitioner was given a show-cause notice before withdrawing his security and had he not explained for the justification of y category coupled with the Intelligence Reports about the threat perception - subsisting or not, proposal for withdrawing the security provided to the petitioner could have been initiated. ( 68 ) AS submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General, there are settled norms for providing various categories of securities to V. I. Ps and citizens. The guidelines to regulate the securities are contained in the yellow book, which has been placed before the Court for perusal. ( 68 ) AS submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General, there are settled norms for providing various categories of securities to V. I. Ps and citizens. The guidelines to regulate the securities are contained in the yellow book, which has been placed before the Court for perusal. In the interest of confidentiality of the book, it is not necessary for us to delve upon the dos and donts in the matter of security provided to the Very Important Persons. The petitioner being an ex-Minister of the Cabinet, certainly, comes within the ambit of V. I. P. and it is also a fact that the provision of security to anyone of the categories enumerated in the yellow book cannot be on permanent basis. However, the guidelines contained in the yellow book and in the G. O. No. 376/6-U-1/96 clearly postulate the standards on the basis of which the security covers would be provided to the V. I. Ps and citizens. We have noticed in the G. O. referred to above that in certain cases, a security cover -once provided free of cost or so at the cost of the Government exchequer may subsequently be kept continued on payment by the protectee to the tune of various percentages of the total expenditure likely to be incurred on the security personnel. It cannot be ascertained from the State Level Committees Report as to whether the guidelines prescribed by the aforesaid Government order and the yellow book were followed or not but it remains a fact that there were inconsistent reports of the District Authorities, district Magistrates Reports dated 30th July, 2003 and 27th september, 2003, clearly indicate that a serious threat perception to the life of the petitioner still persists. No reason has been disclosed as to why these reports have been ignored by the State level Committee. Also it has not been submitted by the opposite-parties before us as to whether the Home Department of the State government solicited some reports or not from the Intelligence bureau of the Central Government. Also there is nothing to show as to what were the reports of the State Local Intelligence. Also it has not been submitted by the opposite-parties before us as to whether the Home Department of the State government solicited some reports or not from the Intelligence bureau of the Central Government. Also there is nothing to show as to what were the reports of the State Local Intelligence. In this way, the Home Department has not come with clean hands before the Court to justify the Order pertaining to the withdrawal of the petitioners security, we are, therefore, inclined to continue our order dated 17th February, 2004 and direct the opposite-parties to carry on the petitioners security with y category cover until there are positive reports of the State and Central Governments intelligence Agencies to the effect that the threat perception to his life has withered away. ( 69 ) HOWEVER, in view of various police reports on record, we do not find that the norms prescribed for providing z or z+ category security cover stand fulfilled. ( 70 ) IN view of the above discussions, we hold that the petition partly succeeds and it is accordingly allowed. A writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding the respondents not to withdraw the y scale security until there are confirmed reports from all authorities concerned including the Intelligence Bureau of the Central Government that threat perception to the life of the petitioner has faded away and a fresh decision is taken by the state Level Committee after inviting from the petitioner his written version. However, the other prayer for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to provide z+ security is rejected. ( 71 ) WE maintain that it will be in the discretion of the government to consider the petitioners prayer for better security arrangements and the Government Machinery would certainly be competent to review the petitioners security from time to time and take decisions, as may be deemed fit in the prevailing situation and circumstances. .