Dr Sasikala Pushpa Ramaswamy vs J K Tripathy & Ors
2020 Latest Caselaw 2004 Del

$~7

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                  Judgment delivered on: 17.06.2020
+     CONT.CAS(C) 295/2020
DR. SASIKALA PUSHPA RAMASWAMY                         ..... Petitioner
                          versus

J.K.TRIPATHY & ORS.                                  ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr.P.N.Ravindran,Sr.Advocate with Mr.Kunal Anand and
                    Mr.Rama Swami, Advocates.

For the Respondent: Mr.M.Yogesh Kanna, Standing Counsel for State of Tamil
                    Nadu/R-1 to 4.

                    Mr.Chaitanya Gosain, Advocate for R-5 along with
                    Insp.Sahdev Singh Tomar, SHO, North Avenue and SI
                    Vijay Pal, P.S.North Avenue.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

                             JUDGMENT

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL) CONT.CAS(C) 295/2020 & CM APPL.12355/2020 (seeking interim directions to provide security to petitioner with immediate effect in terms of order dated 05.05.2017)

1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.

2. Petitioner has filed the present petition seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against respondent Nos.1 to 5 for alleged breach of order dated 05.05.2017 passed in W.P(Crl) 2315/2016.

Cont.Cas(C) 295/2020 Page 1

3. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are the officers of the State of Tamil Nadu. Respondent No.5 is the Commissioner of Police, Delhi.

4. It is contended by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that by order date 05.05.2017, based on the treat perception to the petitioner it was assured that petitioner shall be provided with two police personnel along with weapon and wireless sets round the clock.

5. Learned senior counsel submits that whenever petitioner was making any inter-state travel, a wireless message was being sent to the police force at the destination and she was provided similar protection at the destination location.

6. As per the petitioner when petitioner visited State of Tamil Nadu recently, the security cover was initially provided, however, the same was subsequently withdrawn.

7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 submits that in terms of order dated 05.05.2017, whenever petitioner has to make any inter-State travel, a wireless message is sent by the police authorities in Delhi to the police force at the destination requesting them to provide identical protection cover and the protection cover is being provided at Delhi as well as at the destination locations.

8. Learned counsel further submits that this time also when the petitioner had travelled, wireless message was sent to the police force at the destination.

Cont.Cas(C) 295/2020 Page 2

9. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits that petitioner was provided two police personnel along with wireless sets and weapons for her protection in terms of the wireless message received from the Delhi Police with regard to her travel.

10. Learned counsel submits that when petitioner had recently visited the State of Tamil Nadu, she had intended to make travel within the State to different districts and in the present lockdown situation inter district travel within the State is only permissible after a movement pass is obtained from the concerned authority.

11. Learned counsel submits that petitioner had intended to make intra State travel inter district without obtaining the pass and that is why her security personnel were advised that she could not make the travel.

12. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner presently is in Tamil Nadu and in case she wishes to make any inter district travel within the State of Tamil Nadu she shall duly apply for the requisite movement pass and only on obtaining the same would she make her travel.

13. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent assures that as directed by order dated 05.05.2017, whenever petitioner visits the State of Tamil Nadu and an information is received about her stay in the State of Tamil Nadu, from Respondent No. 5, she shall be provided with two police personnel along with weapons and wireless

Cont.Cas(C) 295/2020 Page 3 sets for her round the clock protection.

14. Keeping in view the assurance given by learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 that petitioner shall be provided with two police personnel, round the clock, with weapons and wireless set for her protection, no further orders are called for in this petition.

15. The petition is disposed of.

16. Copy of the Order be uploaded on the High Court website and be also forwarded to learned Counsels for the Parties through email.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

JUNE 17, 2020/rk




Cont.Cas(C) 295/2020                                              Page 4