Ashwini Kumar Chopra v. UOI & Ors

MANMOHAN, J December 16, 2010 nm/dk

* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on : 30th November, 2010 % Judgment Pronounced on : 16th December, 2010 + LPA No. 293/2010 Shri Ashwini Kr. Chopra ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Kamal Nijhawan and Mr.Sumit Gaur, Advocates versus Union of India & Ors. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.A.S. Chandhiok, ASG with Mr.Jatan Singh and Mr.Ritesh Kumar, Advocates HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN 1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes DIPAK MISRA, CJ Calling in question the legal substantiality of the order dated 9th March, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.11529/2009 the present intra-Court appeal has been preferred. 2. The appellant / petitioner (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant") invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the respondents to withdraw the notices/orders passed by them downgrading his security cover from Z+ to Z and cancellation of the allotment of government accommodation at 34, Lodhi Estate, New Delhi. The facts which were put forth before the writ court are that appellant"s father and grandfather were slain at the hands of Punjab extremists for their bold editorial policy against terrorism and extremism. That apart, the grandfather of the appellant was a veteran freedom fighter who founded a newspaper publication company, namely, "The Hind Samachar Limited", which immensely contributed towards the freedom struggle. The appellant is involved in writing editorials in the publication "Punjab Kesari" to propagate against terrorism and militant organisations and has been scrupulously carrying the said crusade. His family has been living in the fear of death and, therefore, the Government of India had provided to him and his family members the security cover of Z+ category. As set forth, on 12th January, 1998 on the recommendations of the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, the Directorate of Estates allotted to the appellant Type VI bungalow at 34, Lodhi Estate, New Delhi in general pool accommodation. The allotment was initially for a period of one year and was to be renewed on receipt of intimation from the Ministry of Home Affairs. 3. It was urged in the writ petition that the Directorate of Estates, Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India served a notice on 5th May, 2000 on the appellant requiring him to vacate the government accommodation allotted to him, as a part of his Z+ security cover, from the receipt of the said notice on the ground that a decision has been taken to revoke the allotment. The said notices were impugned and were made subject matter of WP(Crl) 490/2000 and WP(C) 2375/2001 which related to cancellation of his allotment and withdrawal of the security cover. On 12th March, 2004, the appellant received a letter from the office of Ministry of Urban Development and Poverty Alleviation, Directorate of Estates directing him to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the premises as the period of retention allowed by the competent authority had expired on 31.10.2003. The said order came to be challenged in WP(C) No.4480/2004, which was disposed of on 31st August, 2004 after recording that the government had decided to extend the period by one year from 5th August, 2004 subject to approval of the competent authority. As set forth, in August, 2009 the allotment in favour of the appellant was cancelled. The said cancellation was called in question in a writ petition being WP(C) No.11529/2009 and during the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner"s security cover was downgraded from Z+ to Z category. Before the learned Single Judge it was contended that downgrading of security cover ignores real and apparent threats to the life of the appellant and the