B. Rajendran, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has come forward with this writ petition seeking to issue a direction to the respondents to give police protection to him and his family members so as to enable them to live peacefully and perform social services assigned to the petitioner.
(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he was a former Additional Public Prosecutor (Co -ordination) and also a practicing advocate in the Madras High Court. It is stated that the petitioner acted as a Co -ordinator for important cases before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court and also the Supreme Court of India on behalf of the Tamil Nadu Government. The petitioner claims to have handled lot of sensitive and sensational cases that caught the headlines and made huge impact on the law and order situation of the State such as the Sarika Shah Eve Teasing Case, Coimbatore Bomb Blast Case etc., It is further claimed that the petitioner has been opposing the relief of bail made by the rebels and notorious elements which resulted in denial of bail to them. In view of such sensational and sensitive cases handled by the petitioner, there were frequent threat to his life and taking note of the high sensitive cases handled by him, police protection was granted to him by the respondents during the year 2009 which consists of three Armed guards and a police vehicle provided as security cover. According to the petitioner, on 24.05.2011, the security cover provided to him was withdrawn without taking note of the prevailing threats. Therefore, the petitioner sent a representation dated 06.06.2011 to the respondents to renew the police protection, but there was no response. It is further stated that the petitioner was appointed as the Regional Advisor (Asia -Pacific) and UNESCO Centre and the Good Will Ambassador (Asia -pacific) for International Human Rights Commission (IHRC). In such position, the petitioner handled intense human right issues across the Asia Pacific, including Sri Lankan Human Right Violations. The petitioner was also instrumental in inviting the international community to take necessary affirmative steps in the appropriate channels to push UN referendum as the only solution to end the genocide in the Asia Pacific countries. In this context, there were frequent threats received by the petitioner and the petitioner was also permitted to hold a gun for his personal security reasons. As the petitioner was attending many conferences, official meetings and travels widely to other States, he could not carry the gun on all such occasion. Therefore, he submitted a representation to the respondents again on 10.12.2013, followed by a reminder on 27.12.2013, but there was no response. While so, on 19.01.2013, the junior of the petitioner had borrowed his car and when he was travelling in the car, unidentified men followed the vehicle with deadly weapons and restrained the vehicle. In this context, the petitioner's junior has given a complaint with J -1 Saidapet Police Station. This incident assumes significance especially when the petitioner, just prior to that date i.e., 18.01.2013, received a threatening call from a overseas mobile number. These incidents fortified his apprehension that he and his family may not be safe and secure. According to the petitioner, his movements are continuously watched by suspicious persons who are often spotted in the vicinity of his home, office and sometimes followed him in the vehicle. It is further submitted that since the petitioner belonged to the opposition party, his claim for providing security cover has not been considered by the respondents. The learned learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the Order dated 05.11.2013 in MP No. 1 of 2013 in WP No. 27710 of 2013, wherein the Division Bench of this Court, having regard to the facts and circumstance involved in that case, directed the respondents to provide to the petitioners therein interim police protection atleast by two armed police personnel round the clock pending further orders.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the communication dated 04.06.2012 from UNESCO Centre addressed to the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India wherein it is stated that the petitioner is dealing with sensitive and sensational cases and that the petitioner is also an UN election observer and requested to provide appropriate security cover to the petitioner and his family. On the strength of this communication received from UNESCO Centre, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondents in this writ petition.;