Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 950 (ALL)

Ramvir Upadhyay v. State of Uttar Pradesh

2004-04-30

BHANWAR SINGH, TARUN CHATTERJEE

body2004
( 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Samaj Party with a view to join another political party, he was conveyed rather threatened of his security being withdrawn.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 leveled 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 opponents was dismissed. But keeping in view the Government Order No. 376/6-U-1/96, the Court mandated the governor to restore the security cover of the petitioner. The division Bench in that case ruled as follows:- "be that as it may, in view of the fact that the petitioner was an important trap witnesses for prosecution and is required to be examined as very important witness in relation to Crime No. 479 of 1995 State v. Kamta Singh, Special Case No. 5 of 1997 under Sections 7 and 13 (2) of the prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station naini, Allahabad, which is said to be pending before the Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Varanasi and if it is a fact that the Government for one reason or another had withdrawn that shadow, we hope and trust that without any delay/or hitch or murmur the Governor will restore his back unless and until the earlier orders of this Court referred to as above are modified and/or further nullified by this Court itself on a good cause shown by the Government remanding that the government has got no powers to review our constitutional judicial orders. " ( 34 ) IT would not be out of context to mention that while making observations, as referred to above, this Court referred to earlier order of the Court, as referred to in para 15 of the decision, which maybe quoted as below:- "by this petition, the petitioner had prayed for security being provided to him. This Court by an Order dated 27th may, 1999 has found the petitioner to be an important trap witness and he is accordingly directed security to be provided to him to enable his evidence to be brought on record. In the counter-affidavit filed in this petition, it has been stated that the security which could be provided by the Senior Superintendent of Police has already been provided to the petitioner, consequently, while observing that his security shall continue to be made available to the petitioner till the disposal of the trial. " From perusal of the observations of the two different Division benches, as referred to above, it is more than clear that this Court has ruled its authority time and again with a view to issue directions/writ of Mandamus to the Government to provide security cover to its citizens and why not? The Court while protecting the Fundamental Rights of the citizens has to exercise its authority by means of issuing writs in different forms including directions mandating the Government to protect the life of individuals. ( 35 ) IT may not be needless to refer to Article 21 of the constitution of India which postulates that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. A solicited protection of security for ones life or personal liberty is enshrined in the right to protection of life and personal liberty. As a matter of fact, right to life as envisaged in the aforesaid Article means something more than survival. It would include all those aspects of life which go to make a mans life complete and worth living. That which alone can make it possible to live must be declared to be an integral component of the right to live. If one cannot survive with liberty to stay home or move out without a risk of being eliminated, he cannot be said to have a right to life. That which alone can make it possible to live must be declared to be an integral component of the right to live. If one cannot survive with liberty to stay home or move out without a risk of being eliminated, he cannot be said to have a right to life. ( 36 ) IN other words, if there is an imminent danger to his life and he pleads for protection and the Government refused or provided inadequate protection and eventually, if such a person is either harmed or eliminated by his opponents or criminals, his right to life is obviously curtailed. ( 37 ) THE right to life has to be interpreted in different ways in different types. Terrorism and violence have acquired these days greater dimensions with a view to subserve political and narrow partisan objectives. The danger to the life and liberty of certain highly placed persons is sudden and grave. ( 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. 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. 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 its awesome 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. . .