ORDER : 1. This Special Leave Petition challenges the order passed by the High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow Bench dated 08.05.2013 which is rather innocuous in view of the fact that the Judgment has been reserved by the High Court in Special Appeal No. 257 of 2013, wherein it has been observed by the High Court that during pendency of the matter i.e. before the Judgment is pronounced, further proceedings in the matter pending before the learned Contempt Judge shall remain stayed. 2. The matter pertains to a claim raised by the petitioner for providing 'Z' or 'Y' category security which he was enjoying while he was holding the portfolio of a Minister of the Cabinet rank during the erstwhile Government of Uttar Pradesh, which changed in March, 2012 after the election. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner ceased to be the minister and, therefore, the 'Z' category security which had been provided to him while he was functioning as a minister was withdrawn by Order dated 14.12.2012, which is a part of the record before us. It was ordered that the 'Z' category security which had been provided to the petitioner would be withdrawn as it was decided by the Committee, after analysing the orders passed by the High Court in W.P. No. 5822 (MB) of 2003 and W.P. No. 2087 (M/B) of 2012 and also after considering the reports and recommendations of the District Committee, Security Unit, not to provide the 'Z' category security to the petitioner and it was further decided that in place of 'Z' category security, two gunners (one official gunner and one at the petitioner's personal expense of 10%) be provided to him. 4. The petitioner felt aggrieved by this order and filed a Writ Petition before the High Court which was dismissed as withdrawn, as according to the submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the learned Single Judge dealing with the Writ Petition was of the view that the Writ Petition is not the appropriate remedy and the petitioner should move by way of a contempt in a matter wherein certain directions were issued in his favour granting him appropriate security. The petitioner accordingly moved the High Court by way of a Contempt Petition where the matter was pending. The petitioner accordingly moved the High Court by way of a Contempt Petition where the matter was pending. While the Contempt proceeding was pending before the Division Bench of the High Court as per the High Court rules, the respondent-State came up in appeal before the Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 257 of 2013, wherein the arguments were heard by it and the Judgment was reserved. As noted earlier, further proceedings in the matter pending before the learned Contempt Judge was stayed by the High Court. 5. The petitioner felt seriously aggrieved by this order and even before the Judgment could be pronounced, he filed a Special Leave Petition before this Court wherein it has been urged that the threat perception to the petitioner is so grave in nature that he cannot even wait for the Judgment to be pronounced by the High Court and he should be granted 'Z' or 'Y' category security apart from the gunners' security which had already been provided to him and for this purpose, the counsel vehemently and with excessive zeal, submitted that the security provided to the petitioner is not sufficient and he should be provided with 'Z' or 'Y' category security even though he no longer continues as minister of the State. 6. This Court, at an earlier date i.e. on 03.06.2013, passed an order permitting the petitioner to move the Division Bench of the High Court stating that he should be made available 'Z' or 'Y' security instantly as his threat perception is very grave. This Court permitted him to do so in spite of the fact that the petitioner, under the rules, is not entitled to either 'Z' or 'Y' category security as an ex-minister. However, Mr. Rajiv Dutta, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, endeavoured to impress upon this Court that although under the rules, an ex-minister may not be entitled to 'Z' or 'Y' category security, but if the security threat to any person including a minister is so grave, then security may be provided to him even at the cost of the State exchequer. Prima facie, we were impressed by his argument as a particular privilege which is granted to certain category of persons has been provided in Rule Manual (known as 'Yellow Book') and the dignitaries who are entitled to such security has already been laid down therein which includes appropriate security even to an ordinary citizen. 7. However, in our experience, we have hardly seen any security of 'Z' or 'Y' category provided to any ordinary citizen howsoever, grave the threat perception or imminent danger may be to the person concerned. The petitioner, however, has claimed it obviously as a 'privileged class' by virtue of being an ex-minister which at times, may be justified even to an ex-minister or any other dignitary, considering the nature and function of the duties which he had discharged, which could facilitate the assessment of his threat perception even after laying down the office. But what exactly is his threat perception and whether the same is grave in nature, obviously will have to be left to be decided by the authorities including the authorities of the State or the Centre which may include even the Intelligence Bureau or any other authority concerned which is entitled to assess the threat perception of an individual. But in so far as the Court of law is concerned, it would obviously be in a predicament to come to any conclusion as to whether the threat perception alleged by a person claiming security is grave or otherwise which would hold him entitled to the security of a greater degree, since this is clearly a question of factual nature to be dealt with by the authorities entrusted with the duty to provide security after assessing the need and genuineness of the threat to any individual. 8. It is in this light and spirit that we have relied upon the order of the State authorities which constituted a Committee and thereafter, observed that the threat perception of the petitioner is only to the extent where he can be provided security of two armed constables (one at the instance of the State and the other at 10% expense of the petitioner). 9. In that view of the matter, we do not deem it appropriate to entertain this Special Leave Petition straightaway even before the Division Bench has decided the matter. The Special Leave Petition, in our view, is pre-mature. 9. In that view of the matter, we do not deem it appropriate to entertain this Special Leave Petition straightaway even before the Division Bench has decided the matter. The Special Leave Petition, in our view, is pre-mature. In so far as the interim security which has been claimed by the petitioner is concerned, we have already granted liberty to the petitioner to move the Division Bench of the High Court to claim appropriate security which the High Court might consider after assessing and eliciting the report from the competent authorities in this regard. 10. Learned senior counsel submitted that this liberty to move the Division Bench of the High Court be extended even in summer vacation considering the grave nature of threat to the security of the petitioner. We see no reason to deny this part of the request made by learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner would be at liberty to move the Vacation Bench of the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench for the appropriate relief. In so far as this Special Leave Petition is concerned, we see no reason to entertain the same. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed.