Allahabad High Court
Haji Abdul Hakim vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others on 20 May, 2013
Bench: Shiva Kirti Singh, Chief Justice, Dilip Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Chief Justice's Court
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 66985 of 2012
Petitioner :- Haji Abdul Hakim
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Prabhat Kumar Srivastava
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Shiva Kirti Singh,Chief Justice
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
This writ petition has been filed against the decision of the High Level Committee issued under the signature of Principal Secretary, Home, Uttar Pradesh dated 26th October, 2012 contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition. By that decision, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of a gunner for personal security has been declined after recording therein the earlier direction of this Court dated 31.08.2012 passed in the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner bearing number 43631 of 2012.
From the reference dated 25.4.2012 made by the District Level Officials contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition, it has been shown that the Committee has noted that persons, who have been convicted in the year 2003 in relation to murder of petitioner's brother and who are on bail in an appeal pending before this Court since 2003, are habitual criminals and petitioner apprehends threat to his life from them. District Level Committee has referred to Guidelines contained in Government Orders dated 5.5.2008 and has expressed an opinion that as per those Guidelines, petitioner may be provided a Guard on payment of 25% cost, but as it appears from the impugned order, the said recommendation has not been accepted. The High Level Committee in the impugned order has considered the facts disclosed by the petitioner in his application dated 12.9.2012 including the murder of his brother in 2001 leading to conviction of the criminals who have been released on bail. The fact that in the year 2009, the brother of the petitioner was attacked by the criminals leading to a case under Section 307 of I.P.C. and under Section 25 of the Arms Act, which is pending in the Court, has also been considered by the High Level Committee. It has been noticed that the petitioner possesses Revolver and a Rifle. One of his brothers possesses a Revolver and his father has a D.B.B.L. license. After considering all the relevant facts, the High Level Committee has come to the opinion that the opinion of the District Level Committee was not justified as the petitioner possesses sufficient arms for his security and action has already been taken against the accused persons in accordance with law.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the Government Orders relating to grant of Gunner, Shadow and Guard, etc dated 25.4.2001 contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition. According to him, in case of serious crime, the person who is engaged in pairavi or to depose as witness, may be entitled for security provided an application is filed, if justification exists for grant of such security as per last entry in the various categories indicated in paragraph 3 of the order.
The last entry, in our view, is a salutary provision because protection to informant and witnesses may become necessary for ensuring justice, particularly when a serious offence is under trial. At the stage of trial, it is common knowledge that informant and witnesses are subjected to threats in order to dissuade them from deposing in the case.
The facts of the present case, however, clearly disclose that the case of 2001 in which the petitioner was doing pairavi reached conclusion in the Trial Court in the year 2003 itself. Hence, at the appellate stage when the requirement of deposition or pairavi does not exist any more, in our considered view, the last entry cannot justify the petitioner's prayer for providing him gunner security at the cost of the State. The views of the High Level Committee at the State Level cannot be said to be perverse because the petitioner possesses more than one licensed arm.
In exercise of writ jurisdiction, the main concern of the Court is to ensure that the authorities act within their jurisdiction in accordance with fair procedure and do not pass any orders which can be termed as perverse, i.e. based on no materials. Such extraordinary jurisdiction cannot be equated with appellate jurisdiction and this Court is not required to substitute its own view in place of views of the authority, which has been vested with powers to decide a particular matter. It is decision making process, which is important for the purpose of exercising judicial review of administrative power.
Considering these salutary principles, we are not persuaded to interfere in the matter. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
Order Date :- 20.5.2013
RK
