Swami Chakrapani v. Union Of India And ANR

$~61 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6291/2017 & CM Nos. 26070/2017, 26071/2017 & 26072/2017 SWAMI CHAKRAPANI ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr Rajesh Raina, Mr Manu Nayar, Mr S. K. Jha and Mr Abhishek Agarwal, Advocates.

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

Mr Kavindra Gill, Advocate for R-1.

Mr Rajat Malhotra and Mr Sunil Malhotra, Advocates for R2/GNCTD.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R

% 25.07.2017 1.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under:- "a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order/ directions in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents thereby directing the respondents to immediately provide and restore the full cover 'Z' level security to the petitioner and further provide better and adequate security in the light of the lingering threats to the life of the petitioner from Global terrorist Dawood Ibrahim and Chota Shakeel as well his henchmen thereby protecting the life, limb and property of the petitioner, in the interest of justice."

2.

The averments made in the petition indicate that the petitioner has been receiving threats from the known gangster Chota Shakeel @ Shakeel Babu Mian Sheikh and members of the Dawood Ibrahim gang. The petitioner has listed out several threat messages that has been received by him by SMS. All the aforesaid messages were duly communicated to the police authorities. The averments also indicate that the police had apprehended certain persons on the allegations that they taken a supari for eliminating the petitioner. The averments also indicate that the police authorities were live to the aforesaid threats and had also cautioned the petitioner to be alert. The police authorities, thereafter, provided the petitioner with a „Z‟ Security cover, which was withdrawn on 28.06.2017. This has led the petitioner to approach this Court. 3.

The petitioner alleges that the security cover was withdrawn as the petitioner had taken a public stand against the Central Government on several issues and this has resulted in the withdrawal of his security cover. Although it is clear that the petitioner perceives himself to be vulnerable, the question whether the petitioner is to be provided a security cover and to what extent is the matter, which would have to be examined solely by the concerned authorities. It is also apparent that the police authorities have been live to the threats issued to the petitioner and from time to time taken necessary steps to address the same.

4.

In the aforesaid circumstances, the respondents are directed to re-evaluate the threat perception to the necessity of the petitioner and if found necessary, to provide him the security cover as they consider necessary. Although allegations that the withdrawal of security cover is malafide has been stated

in the petition, this Court is not examining that aspect and it is expected that the police authorities shall examine the issue independently. The respondent shall communicate their decision within a period of two weeks so that if the petitioner is dissatisfied with the same, the petitioner is able to engage a private security agency or make other alternative arrangements. 5.

The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. 6.

Dasti.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J JULY 25, 2017 MK