- (1.) The petitioner alleges that he is a social worker and owns a Brick Klin. An incident occurred in his Brick Klin on 23rd December, 2009 in which one of his labourers was murdered. On investigation, one Madan Pasi was arrested, who is still in jail. The petitioner alleges that he came to know that Madan Pasi hired a contract killer Babboo Singh to eliminate the petitioner as Madan Pasi felt that the petitioner was responsible for his arrest. Upon this information, the petitioner filed an application before the DIG, Gorakhpur for providing security. This application was forwarded to the SSP concerned. The matter was placed before the District Level Committee and after due inquiry, the District Level Committee passed an order dated 25th May, 2014 providing one gunner to the petitioner for a period of 30 days on payment of 10% charges. This order was subsequently, extended by an order dated 3rd July, 2014 and 13th November, 2014 and in this way, the security cover was extended till 31st December, 2014.
(2.) The petitioner contends that the District Level Committee has only power to provide a security cover for a period of six months and, thereafter, only the State Level Committee can extend the security cover. The petitioner contends that the District Level Committee has submitted a report dated 31st December, 2014 to the State Government recommending one security gunner on payment of 10% expenses, which matter is pending consideration before the State Level Committee. The petitioner, accordingly, has filed the present writ petition praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the State Level Committee to consider the recommendation of the District Level Committee.
(3.) This Court by an order dated 20th March, 2015 directed the learned Standing Counsel to file a counter affidavit. An affidavit has been filed by the Principal Secretary (Home) contending that pursuant to the directions given by this Court in Dr. Nutan Thakur Vs. State of U.P. and others in Writ Petition No.6509 (MB) of 2013, the State Government has framed a fresh policy dated 9th May, 2014 for providing security where a threat perception actually exists on an applicant. This government order provides that actual threat perception should exist and that on a mere apprehension security could not be provided. Further, the background, antecedent, criminal history and misuse of security are also relevant considerations to be examined objectively by the State Level Committee while considering the application for grant of security cover.;