Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 527 (UTT)

PREM SHANKAR MISHRA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2019-09-25

ALOK KUMAR VERMA, RAMESH RANGANATHAN

body2019
JUDGMENT Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. (Oral) Heard Mr. Vivek Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned AGA for the State Government, and, with their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a mandamus commanding respondent Nos.3 and 4 to provide adequate police protection to the lives, liberty and property of the petitioners from respondent Nos.5 to 8, and their companions. 3. The petitioners had earlier invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filing WPCRL No.2135 of 2018. A Division Bench of this Court had, by its order dated 10.12.2018, directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Pauri Garhwal to make an assessment of the threat perception to the petitioner's life and that of his family members; and to pass an order on his representation seeking police protection, in view of the fact that, on the complaint of the respondents, an FIR was registered against the petitioners, and after investigation a charge sheet had been filed against them. The Senior Superintendent of Police was directed to pass an order on the petitioner's representation at the earliest and, in any event, not later than one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Division Bench made it clear that, in case the Senior Superintendent of Police was satisfied that there was a threat to the lives of the petitioners, he should provide them adequate police protection for a period of eight weeks thereafter; and it was open to the petitioners, in the meanwhile, to approach the civil court, and seek an order of protection in O.S. No. 7 of 2017. The Division Bench also made it clear that they had not expressed any opinion on the rival claims of the parties, or as to which of them was entitled to be granted an order of interim injunction by the courts below, as these were all matters to be examined by the respective civil courts. 4. The petitioners, thereafter, filed Civil Misc. Application No.8 of 2019 in O.S. No. 7 of 2017, before the court of the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal. The said application was disposed of by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. 4. The petitioners, thereafter, filed Civil Misc. Application No.8 of 2019 in O.S. No. 7 of 2017, before the court of the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal. The said application was disposed of by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), by his order dated 02.09.2019, holding that, as per the report of the Senior Superintendent of Police, the applicant and his family members did not have any direct threat of any type at present; in the past, a report, concerning the life and property of the applicant and his family members, had been sent by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Pauri Garhwal; there had been no incident between the parties for the last eight months; and there was no requirement for extension of police security. The learned Judge observed that, even after receipt of the report of the Senior Superintendent of Police, security would have been extended if it had been shown in the report that there was a threat to the life and property of the applicant, but, as per the report, the applicant did not need any police security; except calling for the police report, to ascertain whether the applicant had any threat to his life and property, the Court had no other option; the applicant was demanding police security; it is only the police which could determine whether or not the applicant required security; and the court would be justified in granting police security to the applicant only on the assessment by the police officials. 5. With respect to the petitioners' objection that the Senior Superintendent of Police had filed a false report in connivance with the opposite parties, the learned Single Judge observed that the newspaper-cutting, relied upon by the applicant, was not sufficient to establish the fact of connivance of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Pauri Garhwal with the opposite party; and no application, regarding any violation by the police, had been filed in the Court. 6. The learned Judge, thereafter, observed that it was orally stated by the applicant that the Senior Superintendent of Police and the applicant were personally present in the Court; and, moreover, a prayer was made that the applicant wanted to initiate proceedings in the High Court; and hence, for some time, he may be provided police security. In view of the petitioners' claim that he would approach the High Court, the learned Civil Judge (Jr. In view of the petitioners' claim that he would approach the High Court, the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) directing that he be granted police protection for a period of four weeks to enable him to approach the High Court. The order of the learned Judge dated 02.09.2019, granting the petitioners four weeks' time, would expire on 26.09.2019. 7. As noted hereinabove, this Court had examined the matter earlier, and by order, in WPCRL No.2135 of 2018 dated 10.12.2018, they were directed to approach the Civil Court seeking an order of protection. The order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), rejecting the petitioners' claim to be provided police protection, could only have been agitated by way of an appeal as provided under the Civil Procedure Code, and not by approaching this Court again seeking the very same relief as was sought in the earlier Writ Petition. 8. While we were initially inclined to dismiss the Writ Petition, Mr. Vivek Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the petitioner may not be alive for him to avail his appellate remedy, since he would have no protection whatsoever after 26.09.2019; and he would also not be in a position to approach the appellate court, since the security presently being provided to him is only at his residence, and not elsewhere. 9. We see no reason, in the present writ proceedings, to examine the petitioners' claim of a threat to his life, in the light of the order of Senior Superintendent of Police that there is none. However, taking note of the submission of Mr. Vivek Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the petitioners may not be alive even to avail the appellate remedy, we direct that the order passed by the Court below, providing police protection to the petitioners till 26.09.2019, shall stand extended by a further period of two weeks thereafter to enable the petitioners, in the meanwhile, to avail their appellate remedy, since they have a fundamental right under the Constitution to avail their judicial remedies. The Senior Superintendent of Police shall, during this period of two weeks, consider providing them escort to attend Court, and travel back to their residence. 10. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the petitioners' claim of a threat to their lives, since these are all matters for the appellate court to examine. The Senior Superintendent of Police shall, during this period of two weeks, consider providing them escort to attend Court, and travel back to their residence. 10. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the petitioners' claim of a threat to their lives, since these are all matters for the appellate court to examine. In case, its jurisdiction is invoked by the petitioners herein, the appellate court shall adjudicate the appeal on its merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made in this order. 11. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. 12. Let a copy of this order be provided to the learned counsel for the parties, on payment of the prescribed charges, by tomorrow.