Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DHARAM PAL YADAV versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Dharam Pal Yadav v. State Of U.P. And Others - CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 7107 of 2005 [2007] RD-AH 9500 (18 May 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 44

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7107 of 2005

Dharam Pal Yadav............................................................Petitioner

Versus

State of U.P. and others..................................................Respondents

*******

Hon'ble Imtiyaz Murtaza, J.

Hon'ble Amar Saran, J.

Heard Shri Manish Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri A.K. Sand, learned Additional Government Advocate.

This writ petition was filed for quashing the order dated 25.6.2005 passed by the S.S.P. Bulandshahr in pursuance of the of the order of the State Government dated 6.6.2005 whereby the security provided to the petitioner, who was an Ex-M.P. had been withdrawn in accordance with the rules.

Initially an interim order was passed on 7.7.2005 by a Bench of Hon'ble S.S. Kulshrestha and Hon'ble K.N. Ojha, JJ that the petitioner had been an Ex-Member of Parliament and Member of State Assembly for a number of terms and in the past he was given cover of Z-category and because of his political rivalry his brother and brother-in-law both were murdered and because of political animosity security cover had been withdrawn. Learned Additional Government Advocate has pointed out that Z- security was provided to the petitioner during the election period and he is now not a Member of Parliament or State Assembly and as such was not entitled for security, but an order was passed that the case would be taken up on 28.7.2005 and till then the security which had been provided earlier would continue.

On 28.7.2005 an order was passed extending the earlier order dated 7.7.2007 by the aforesaid Division Bench till 24.8.2005. Again on 24.08.2005, an order was passed extending the interim order till the case was listed in the next cause list. Thereafter, it appears that on 16.4.2007 the case was listed before the Bench of Hon'ble Yatindra Singh and Hon'ble R.K. Rastogi, JJ, who passed an order transferring the matter to this Bench and connecting the matter with Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 5520 of 2006 (Gayur Hasan Vs. State of U.P. and others) in which the question of security to various persons is being examined by this Bench.

On 24.4.2007 this Bench passed an order that in view of the averment made in paragraph 7 of the affidavit dated 20.4.07 filed by the learned Additional Government Advocate that according to the Government Order dated 25.4.2001, the petitioner was only entitled for a single gunner and two additional security personnel  on payment of costs, the security may be provided to the petitioner only in terms of paragraph 7 of the affidavit.

Subsequently, another affidavit sworn on 14.5.2007 has been filed by the Inspector Local Intelligence Unit, district Bulandshshr on behalf of the State which annexes an order of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bulandshahr dated 7.5.2007 that in accordance with the order of the High Court dated 24.4.2007, the petitioner is only entitled to one security guard on payment of 10% cost and two additional security guards on payment of 100% cost. The required pending payment for the said security guards from the period 25.6.2006 to 15.5.2007 was Rs. 8,78,373/- (Rupees eight lac seventy eight thousand three hundred seventy three only). But the petitioner had not made the due payments.

It may be mentioned that this Court has earlier passed several orders in Cr.Misc. Writ Petition No. 5520 of 2006 requiring realization of due payments from persons, who are enjoying security on costs in terms of the Government Order dated 25.4.2001. Also we find that the petitioner has not even filed the original order dated 6.6.2005 on the basis of which security cover was withdrawn from him on 26.6.2005. In the main petition also the petitioner has spoken of the murder of his brother-in-law in 1993, who was the petitioner's business partner, and murder of his brother in 1998, which the petitioner claimed was a murder because of mistaken identity with the petitioner and also of one attack on the petitioner on 22.6.1999 in which he received no injury. If the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, there was little reason why there would be so many attacks on him and on his family. Also in the counter affidavit filed by the State Government on 20.4.2007, a long lists of criminal cases against the petitioner have been annexed. Although the petitioner claims to have been acquitted in most of the cases and in some cases he claims to have been falsely implicated due to political rivalry, however, it cannot be said that the petitioner was a man of complete clean antecedents, as it is not usual for politicians with clean credentials to face attacks or to be involved in criminal cases. Moreover, no person can be entitled to continuing security unless he is an MP or MLA or other public representative which is also limited to the terms and conditions mentioned in the  relevant Government Orders. Also simply because 14 years back in 1993 his brother-in-law was murdered or his brother was murdered nine years back in 1998 or because there was an attack on the petitioner 7 years back in 1999, in which he sustained no injury although an FIR was lodged under Section 307 IPC, he is not entitled to security endlessly. It is also mentioned in the State Government's affidavit dated 20.4.07 that the petitioner is a licensee of a revolver and a 315 bore rifle. There may be other weapons with the petitioner's family members and supporters. There has to be a clear and immediate danger for providing security as assessed by the District Level Committee. Thereafter security can only be provided on the terms and conditions mentioned in the relevant Government Orders and as per the directions of this Court.

In this view of the matter, there is no force in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

Dated: 18.5.2007

Ishrat


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.