JUDGMENT Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—We have heard Sri Brijendra Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Chief Standing Counsel. 2. The Principal Secretary (Home), Government of U.P., Lucknow is present in Court today pursuant to our orders. The original record of the State Level Committee, Divisional Level Committee as well as District Level Committee has been produced. 3. The petitioner contends that he is an Advocate by profession and is also a social worker looking after the interest of the down trodden, namely, the jhuggi jhopri dwellers and is also involved in politics alleging himself to be a member of the National Working Committee of the Bhartiya Janta Party. The petitioner contends that he has been raising social issues, which has irked many citizens and political persons and which has created animosity between the petitioner and others leading to an apprehension of a possible threat on his life. As far back in the year 2006, the petitioner approached the then President of the BJP for providing security, on whose recommendation the State Government provided security for 15 days on 25% expenses in March, 2006. Since then, till January, 2014, the petitioner has been granted a security cover, off and on, by the District Level Committee or at the instance of the State Government. The last such order issued by the State Government was 14th December, 2012, which continued till 25th January, 2014 when all of a sudden, the security cover was withdrawn for reasons best known to the State administration. 4. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to provide adequate security on account of danger of his life from anti-social elements. The petitioner contended that he has moved an application before the State Government for providing security with carbon copies to the Senior Superintendent of Police as well as to the District Magistrate. The petitioner further contends that his applications have remained pending and that no action has been taken by any of the authorities. 5. While entertaining the writ petition, we directed the respondents to file a counter-affidavit and produce the records. The petitioner further contends that his applications have remained pending and that no action has been taken by any of the authorities. 5. While entertaining the writ petition, we directed the respondents to file a counter-affidavit and produce the records. According to the petitioner, he was granted a security cover till July, 2014 and, in support of his submission, the petitioner has filed a letter written by Under Secretary to the State Government dated 25th July, 2014 to show that a security cover was granted and after it was withdrawn, he had moved the applications to all the authorities in October, 2014. 6. The Principal Secretary (Home) in his reply has categorically contended that no such application was ever received in their office nor any such recommendation was sent by the Divisional Level Committee, and consequently, there was no occasion for the State Level Committee to consider such application of the petitioner. 7. The counter-affidavit of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 reveal startling information while admitting that security was granted intermitentley to the petitioner from 2006 onwards. A security cover was granted to the petitioner by an order of the State Government dated 14th December, 2012 which continued till 25th January, 2014. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application dated 13th February, 2014 for extension of the security cover, which was rejected by the District Level Committee on 25th February, 2014 on the basis of a report of Local Intelligence Unit, whereby it recommended that security cover should not be provided because there was no threat perception on the life of the petitioner. Paragraph 15 of the counter-affidavit further reveals that the petitioner again gave an application on 25th March, 2014 and a report of the Local Intelligence Unit was again given on 7th June, 2014, on the basis of which, the District Level Committee again took a decision on 12th August, 2014 declining to provide any security. The respondents further contended that the petitioner is a history sheeter having history sheet No. 148A at Police Station Daurala, District Meerut, which indicates that 18 criminal cases are pending against him. The respondents further contended that the petitioner is a history sheeter having history sheet No. 148A at Police Station Daurala, District Meerut, which indicates that 18 criminal cases are pending against him. The respondents in paragraph 14 of the counter-affidavit further submitted that there is no such Government Order dated 25th July, 2014 extending the security cover to the petitioner and, in fact, the said document, which has been annexed as Annexure 9 to the writ petition is an interpolated document of an earlier Government Order dated 25th July, 2012. 8. When accosted with these facts, the learned counsel for the petitioner candidly admittedly that by an error the letter of the Government dated 25th July, 2014 was in fact a letter dated 25th July, 2012 and that the mistake was not done deliberately but was to make the date legible and by mistake 2014 was written instead of 2012. The learned counsel further submitted that out of 18 criminal cases registered against the petitioner, the petitioner has been acquitted or a final report has been submitted in a majority of these cases and, in only three cases, investigation or trial is going on. 9. Be that as it may. We find that the letter of the State Government dated 25th July, 2012 has been interpolated for wrongful purposes by the petitioner to show that he had received a security cover from the State Government even on 25th July, 2014 and, in this manner, tried to influence the Court to indicate that he was continuously being provided a security cover from 2006 onwards. 10. On the other hand, the counter-affidavit reveals that after the withdrawal of the security cover on 25th January, 2014, an application dated 13th February, 2014 and another application dated 25th March, 2014 was filed by the petitioner in which necessary investigation was done by the District Level Committee. 11. Pursuant to the directions given by a Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Nutan Thakur v. State of U.P. and others in Writ Petition No. 6509 (MB) of 2013, the State Government has issued a Government Order dated 9th May, 2014 laying down various guidelines for grant of a security cover by the District Level Committee, Divisional Level Committee and by the State Level Committee. Nutan Thakur v. State of U.P. and others in Writ Petition No. 6509 (MB) of 2013, the State Government has issued a Government Order dated 9th May, 2014 laying down various guidelines for grant of a security cover by the District Level Committee, Divisional Level Committee and by the State Level Committee. One of the criteria is that a security cover should not be given to such persons against whom criminal investigation or a criminal trial is going on unless it is imperative to grant a security cover. Further, security can only be granted where a real threat perception exists and should not be granted on the basis of mere apprehension. 12. This Court in Gayur Hasan v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (10) ADJ 575 and Dr. Pankaj Tripathi v. State of U.P. and others, 2014 (4) ADJ 115 , have held that those who are indulging in criminal activities should not be given a security cover unless there is an exceptional circumstance. 13. In Dr. Pankaj Tripathi’s case (supra) a Division Bench of this Court held that what constitutes a threat perception has not been indicated in the Government order and that a threat perception is therefore, a question of fact, which can only be assessed by the investigating agencies and that it is not the domain of the writ Court to consider whether a threat perception exists in favour of a particular person or not. 14. We find from the counter-affidavit of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 that as far as in August, 2014, the District Level Committee after considering the report of the Local Intelligence Unit held that no threat perception exists. 15. In the light of this categorical finding, we do not find any reason to interfere in such report given by the District Level Committee. If the petitioner was aggrieved, it had a remedy at that stage to question the veracity or legality of the findings given by the District Level Committee which, in the instant case, has not been done. 16. The petitioner has a right to seek a security cover if he finds that there is a threat perception on his life. If the petitioner was aggrieved, it had a remedy at that stage to question the veracity or legality of the findings given by the District Level Committee which, in the instant case, has not been done. 16. The petitioner has a right to seek a security cover if he finds that there is a threat perception on his life. Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides adequate protection but such exercise under Article 21 should only be taken with care and with caution and should not be used as a tool for personal interest or as a status symbol. 17. In the instant case, we find that the petitioner has taking advantage of the fact that he is an Advocate by profession and is misutilising it for personal benefit. The reason why the Court is pointing out to the above circumstance is the fact that the petitioner has interpolated a document for vested interest, namely, the document dated 25th July, 2012, which has been interpolated to be a document issued by the State Government on 25th July, 2014 for providing a security cover. This interpolation by itself indicates that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. Those who do not come with clean hands are not entitled to any relief and on this score, the Court dismisses the writ petition with no further observation. 18. The original record, which has been produced is being handed over Chief Standing Counsel, who may return it to the State Government and to the relevant authorities. 19. Before parting, we found that a large number of cases are coming before this Court and we find that directions of the Court are not being followed nor the Government Order dated 9th May, 2014 is being followed by various authorities/committees in the right perspective. Clear cut specific direction should be issued to all the authorities by the State Government to follow the Government orders and take action on the application of a citizen at the earliest opportune moment after inquiry and necessary investigation. It should be borne in mind that a citizen’s life has to be protected and is one of the onerous duty of the State to provide security whenever necessary and/or whenever the occasion arises. It should be borne in mind that a citizen’s life has to be protected and is one of the onerous duty of the State to provide security whenever necessary and/or whenever the occasion arises. Such steps should be taken at the earliest opportune moment and applications should not be allowed to be kept pending for months together but should be decided in a time bound manner. We, therefore, direct that necessary directions shall be issued by the Principal Secretary (Home), Government of U.P., Lucknow to all the authorities at the earliest. ——————