Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dilip Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 August, 2024
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
(1) W.A.No.788/2024 and W.A.No.812/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 9th OF AUGUST, 2024
WRIT APPEAL No. 788 of 2024
SANJAY SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
With
WRIT APPEAL No. 812 of 2024
DILIP SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Kailash Narayan Gupta, learned Senior counsel with
Shri Sanjeev Jain and Ms.Suhani Dhariwal learned counsel for the
appellants.
Shri Ajay Kumar Nirankari learned Government Advocate
for the respondents/State.
ORDER
(2) W.A.No.788/2024 and W.A.No.812/2024
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia
Since both the appeals are arising out of the same
controversy, hence, are being decided by this common order.
2. Appellants/petitioners have fil
ed W.A.No.788/2024 and W.A.No.812/2024 against the
order dt.14.03.2024 passed by the Writ Court, whereby the Writ
Petition No.152 of 2012 has been dismissed.
3. The facts of the case in short are as under:-
(i) The appellants/petitioners are the real brothers and
permanent residents of District Gwalior. Appellant/petitioner
Sanjay Sharma is the Managing Director of Heeralal Estate and
Construction Private Limited Company. Because of threat
perception, appellants complained to S.P. and sought police
protection by deputing one policeman with each of them. The S.P.
Gwalior vide order dt.25.04.2005 provided them the security of
police personnel only for a period of three months. Thereafter, the
appellants were attacked by Hari Sharma and others and therefore
they lodged a report before the Police Station. In the aforesaid
incident, the son of appellant Sanjay Sharma was killed. The
accused persons were arrested and tried under Section 148, 307 read
with Section 149, 302 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 25
(3) W.A.No.788/2024 and W.A.No.812/2024
(1-B) of the Arms and they were convicted and sentenced by the
learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Gwalior vide judgment
dt.14.02.2007. Thereafter, vide letter dt.12.05.2008, Superintendent
of Police, Gwalior asked the appellants/ petitioners to discontinue
the police protection given by way of 1-4 guards due to non-
payment of necessary charges to the police department. Due
prominent personality of the town vide letter dt.21.04.2010,
Superintendent of Police, Gwalior again directed the Reserve
Inspector, Police Line, Gwalior to provide SAF guards for one
month because of the threat perception. It is important to mention
here the appellants/petitioners already had arms licenses of one
revolver one rifle 315 bore and another gun of 12 bore. In the year
2011, the police protection was withdrawn by the respondents,
therefore, the appellants/petitioners filed Writ Petition No.152/2012
before this Court.
(ii) Vide order dt.06.01.2012, while issuing notices to the
respondents, by way of interim relief Writ Court directed
respondents to continue the security provided earlier to them till the
next date of hearing. A further direction was given to list the case
immediately after the service of notice upon the respondents. The
(4) W.A.No.788/2024 and W.A.No.812/2024
Writ Petition was listed on 03.07.2017 and admitted for hearing and
the interim relief was directed to be continued.
(iii) The respondents/State filed the reply on 21.02.2012 by
submitting that if the petitioners/appellants want to take the benefit
of security guards, the same can be provided to them in terms of
circular dt.21.5.2010 issued by the competent authorities of the
State Government. Since the petitioners/appellants have sufficient
income and property, therefore, they can pay the charges to the
government. Along with the return, the respondents filed a copy of
the circular dated 26.03.2011 prescribing the rate for providing
security for Inspector, Sub Inspector, Assistant Sub Inspector, Head
Constable and Constable for the financial year 2010-11 and 2011-
12. The respondents also filed a copy of the letter dt.30.01.2012
written by the Superintendent of Police Gwalior to the appellants
informing that for providing a Head Constable as a security guard
the rate is Rs.1700/- and for Constable, the rate is Rs.1600/- per day
and the same is liable to be deposited under 0055 Police Head by
way of challan. It has also been informed that upon deposit of the
aforesaid amount, the Policemen shall be provided in compliance of
the court order dt.06.01.2012. After the aforesaid order, the
(5) W.A.No.788/2024 and W.A.No.812/2024
appellants/petitioners neither returned the security nor paid any
charges to the police department.
(iv) The writ petition remained pending for years together
and came up for hearing only when the respondents filed an
application for dismissal of the Writ Petition on 11.04.2023. Along
with this application, the respondents have filed the calculation
chart to show that the appellants have not paid security charges
amounting to Rs.2,55,50,596/- to date, therefore, the writ petition be
dismissed.
(v) Writ Petition was finally heard and vide order
dt.14.03.2024 the same was dismissed by observing that the police
security privately to the citizen is neither a fundamental nor
statutory right. The police are meant to provide protection and
security to the common man and not to persons like petitioners for
years together without payment of any charge and in the absence of
any threat perception. After the dismissal of the writ petition, nw
the police department initiated the recovery proceeding by way of
RRC to recover the amount of Rs.2,55,50,596/-. Hence, this Writ
Appeal.
4. Shri K.N. Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellants submits that the circular dt.26.03.2011
(6) W.A.No.788/2024 and W.A.No.812/2024
provides a deposit of charges of six months in advance and a bank
guarantee for the period of one year. No such demand was made
from the petitioners/appellants and security was being provided in
compliance of the interim order of the Court to the appellants/
petitioners, therefore, now the charges are not liable to be recovered
from the appellants. It is further submitted that the writ court after
the dismissal of the writ petition ought not to have directed for
recovery of the amount of Rs.2,55,50,596/- from the appellants.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. We are not impressed by the aforesaid submissions of the
learned senior counsel. The unfortunate incident in the family of the
appellants/ petitioners took place on 28.05.2005 thereafter the
appellants/petitioners applied to the Superintendent of Police for
providing a gunman. Vide order dt.25.04.2005, one SAF guard was
provided temporarily only for a period of three months. Thereafter,
some of the accused persons were arrested and they were convicted
on 14.02.2007. The remaining accused were also arrested in the
year 2007. From 2005 to 2007 there was no threat assessment, but
the appellants continued to enjoy the facility of the guard without
payment of any charges. Later on, 1-4 guards were also provided at
their residence. Despite the conclusion of the criminal case, they
(7) W.A.No.788/2024 and W.A.No.812/2024
filed a writ petition seeking direction to the respondents to provide
them security by deputing a police gunman. The Writ Court has
passed an order to continue the security which was provided to the
petitioner. The Writ Court by way of interim order did not direct the
police department to provide the security by deputing the policeman
free of cost. Immediately after the interim order, letter
dt.30.01.2012 was written to the petitioners/appellants by the
Superintendent of Police, Gwalior requesting them to deposit
Rs1700/- per day for Head Constable and Rs.1600/- per day for
Constable. The appellants/petitioners did not challenge the aforesaid
order by way of amendment in the writ petition and continued to
avail the facility without depositing any charges in the absence of
any fundamental right, constitutional right or statutory right to get
the police guard for security free of cost. The writ Court has rightly
dismissed the writ petition. We are not inclined to interfere in the
order passed by the Writ Court. The police department has rightly
demanded Rs.2,55,50,596/- as per the circular dated 26/03/2011.
6. The police department has not taken into consideration the
other expenditures incurred on these constables like travelling with
the appellants on government expenses, like TADA, Railway tickets
etc. as when the police guard travelled with the petitioners/the
(8) W.A.No.788/2024 and W.A.No.812/2024
appellants in train. Hence the writ appeals are devoid of merit and
are hereby dismissed.
7. At the end of the arguments, Shri Gupta, learned senior
counsel appearing for the petitioners/appellants submits that the
facility of repayment by way of easy instalments at the rate of
Rs.5,00,000/- per appellant per month be provided to them. This
submission is not liable to be considered at this stage now when the
petitioners/ the appellants have not disclosed their financial status
before this court or pleaded inadequacy of the funds.
8. The appellants/petitioners may file appropriate applications
before the respondents for availing the facility of repayment by way
of EMI subject to a deposit of 50% of total recovery in advance.
9. Both the Writ Appeals are devoid of any merit and are
dismissed accordingly.
A copy of this order be retained in connected writ appeal.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE JUDGE
SP
