Delhi High Court
J.K. Mittal vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 9 September, 2015
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
$~43
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.8557/2015 & CM No.19015/2015
J.K. MITTAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Petitioner-in-person.
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Satyakam, Adv. for R-1 to 4.
Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Adv. for R-
5/DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
ORDER
% 09.09.2015
1. The petitioner, an Advocate of this Court has filed this petition
seeking mandamus to the Police Officials impleaded as respondents No.1 to
4 to provide security of life and property of the petitioner, due to serious
threat thereto perceived by the petitioner in the wake of action initiated by
the respondent No.5 Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for removal of
unauthorized encroachment / construction from government land pursuant to
orders in a petition earlier filed by the petitioner.
2. Notice of the petition was issued.
3. A status report has been handed over by the counsel for the
respondents No.1 to 4 Police in the Court today and is taken on record.
4. It is not deemed necessary to record any details as threat perception is
a question of fact which can only be assessed by investigating agencies and
it is not the domain of Writ Court to consider whether a threat perception
exists in favour of a particular person or not. Reference if any required in
this regard can be made to, (i) Sunil Kumar Bharala Vs. State of U.P.
MANU/UP/0481/2015 (DB); (ii) Gulab Radhwaj Vs. State of U.P.
MANU/UP/0498/2015 (DB); (iii) Dr. Pankaj Tripathi Vs. State of
U.P. MANU/UP/0558/2014 (DB); and, (iv) Om Prakash Rai Vs. State of
U.P. MANU/UP/0846/2014 (DB). I have in Shiv S. Sharma Vs. Union of
India MANU /DE /1024 /2010 held that the Court cannot foray into
determining whether there is any threat to any individual and the same is
purely in the domain of executive functions and that the level scale of
perception is subjective; what an impartial person adjudicating with an
objective view may perceive as a threat of a lesser level scale, is bound to
be a threat of a higher level scale to the threatened person. Similar
observations are to be found in Suhaib Ilyasi Vs. Union of India
MANU/DE/1153/2002 where also, it was observed that a person may over-
react or over-play the threat and the decision of security agencies and
experts in this regard is not to be substituted by the opinion either of the
petitioner or of the Court unless it is shown that the decision is wholly
arbitrary or perverse and has failed to consider the relevant material
produced. The Division Bench of this Court in Shri Ashwini Kr. Chopra Vs.
Union of India AIR 2011 Delhi 154 also held that right under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India is not absolute and grant of security cover is within
the executive domain and it is the executive which is in the best know
of when and what sort of security cover be granted to a particular person. It
was further held that no one can claim as a matter of legal right to be given a
particular security cover.
5. Reference in this regard can also be made to the judgments in the
Arms Act, 1959. A Division Bench of this Court in Parveen Kumar
Beniwal Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi MANU/DE/1304/2015 held that a
citizen cannot assert a right to hold a firearm licence on the ground of threat
perception and that whether there is a perception of threat to the security of a
citizen has to be considered by the licensing authority and not by the Courts.
A Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh has taken the same view
in G. Subas Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 1997 Cri LJ 1296.
6. The counsel for the respondents No.1 to 4 Police on enquiry states
that the said assessment of threat perception is to be carried by Special Cell
and would take about a month's time.
7. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of, with the following directions:
(I) The respondents No.1 to 4 Police to carry out the assessment of
threat perception to the life and property of the petitioner and
the members of his family residing along with him within the
said period of one month and to pass a speaking order thereon
and to serve the same on the petitioner;
(II) Needless to state that if the said assessment finds the petitioner
entitled to any protection, the same shall be provided;
(III) As far as the interregnum period is concerned, the counsel
for the respondents, under instructions from the Station House
Officer, Police Station-Shakarpur, Delhi present in Court, has
fairly stated that till the said report, it will be ensured that no
harm is caused to the petitioner, his property or his family
members residing along with him. It is stated that a Picket has
already been posted in this regard adjacent to the house of the
petitioner.
No costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
SEPTEMBER 09, 2015
Bs/pp..
