Vijay Shankar Shukla v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33368 of 2023 Petitioner :- Vijay Shankar Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiv Narayan Pandey,Divyansh Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.

¶2Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a practicing Advocate in District Court, Fatehpur and has made complaint regarding illegal mining and selling sand and on his complaint the matter is being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation. Due to the aforesaid complaint made by the petitioner he is being threatened by unknown persons. He further submits that on

12.06.2023 an incident took place in which some persons snatched bracelet from the petitioner and caused injuries against whom the petitioner has also lodged an F.I.R. under Section 395 and 506 I.P.C. Thereafter, the petitioner has moved an application seeking protection before respondent nos.2 and 3. In this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as there is threat perception to the petitioner and, therefore, the representation was made for providing protection.

¶3Learned Standing Counsel for the State Respondent states that considering the threat perception the Superintendent of Police, Fatehpur has already taken remedial measures, which is also brought on record as S.A.-1 to the Supplementary affidavit filed along with writ petition. He has also raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the Writ Petition on the ground that the State Government has issued a Government order dated 9th May, 2014 for providing security, which provides that actual threat perception should exist and that on a mere apprehension security could not be provided. Further, the background, antecedent, criminal history and misuse of security are also relevant considerations to be examined objectively firstly by the District Level Committee. While considering the application for grant of security cover, the background antecedents, criminal history and misuse of security are relevant considerations, which are to be examined firstly by the District Level Committee. In case, the applicant is aggrieved with the order of District Level Committee, he can approach the Regional Level Committee and thereafter the State Level Committee.

¶4In Writ C No.32729 of 2016 (Shrikant Tyagi vs. State of UP and 3 ors.) decided on 20.7.2016, this Court has observed that if the threat perception is still being received, it is open to the petitioner to move an application as per the Government Order dated 9.5.2014. In case, any application is moved by the petitioner, it is always expected that the concerned District Authority will consider the said application in accordance with law.

¶5Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending consideration. The writ petition is disposed of asking the petitioner to move an appropriate application as contemplated under law before the concerned District Level Committee. In case, such application is moved by the petitioner within two weeks, the same shall be processed within four weeks further time, but certainly after taking necessary comments from all the stakeholders in the matter. Order Date :- 2.11.2023 S.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad