Mithilesh Kumar Pandey v. Union Of India And ANR

$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6517/2016 MITHILESH KUMAR PANDEY ..... Petitioner Through:

Petitioner-in-person.

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Anil Soni, CGSC with Ms. Saakshi Agrawal, G.P. and Mr. Naginder Benipal, Adv. for R-1/UOI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL

O R D E R

% 26.08.2016 1.

This petition by way of Public Interest Litigation has been filed with a prayer to withdraw the security cover provided to the respondent No.2. 2.

On 27.07.2016, the matter was adjourned by us to enable the learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government to get instructions as to whether any security has been provided to the respondent No.2, who is a resident of Mumbai, State of Maharasthtra, by the Central Government. 3.

The learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government, on instructions, stated that the Union of India has not provided any security to t he respondent No.2 and therefore the question of withdrawal of security by the Union of India does not arise.

W.P.(C) 6517/2016

4.

Therefore, the interference by this Court is not warranted. 5.

However, the petitioner who is appearing in person, has insisted on grant of the prayer (b) in the petition which reads as under: "(b) to direct the Respondent No.1 to lay down guidelines for deciding applications related to provide Govt. security to Private individuals engaged in hate speech / or having criminal cases and about persons having means to hire private security guards or paid security."

6.

We are not inclined to entertain the writ petition even for the said relief for the reason that the writ petition is based upon the allegations made against the respondent No.2 who is a resident of Mumbai and thus the cause of action did not arise within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Even otherwise, we are of the view that the said issue needs no consideration in a Public Interest Litigation.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

CHIEF JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J AUGUST 26, 2016 kks W.P.(C) 6517/2016