RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner prays for a mandamus to the respondent State to provide him security. He has been pursuing a political career since 1977 and says that he contested the State Assembly elections in 2007. He claims that he has political rivalry in Sujanpur Constituency with his arch political rival Sh. Dinesh Singh Babbu, MLA of the BJP. He states that he received a threat call from Mr. Babbu on 03.03.2011 asking him to desist from political activities in Sujanpur Constituency otherwise he would be eliminated. He claims that he was attacked on 17.03.2011 by Mr. Babbu and party. There is an FIR also pending. It received media attention as well. The petitioner applied and requested providing of appropriate security to him. Two Constables were deployed with him on 2.4.2011. The security cover was, however, withdrawn in June, 2012. Fearing danger to his life, he made a request to the DGP, Punjab on 1.10.2012 for providing him security. Says that certain accused persons at the instance of the sitting MLA attacked the petitioner at his work place in his hotel in the midnight of 25.12.2012 and the miscreants resorted to vandalism. However, the petitioner was away to Chandigarh for medical treatment and was thus saved. He lodged a complaint on the website of the Punjab Police that night itself. States that challans have been put up in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Pathankot with respect to the incident of 17.3.2011. The petitioner runs a hotel and resides some times in Chandigarh or at New Delhi. He has to look after his agricultural lands in his constituency. His request to the Financial Commissioner (Home), Punjab for security have not met with any success. The petitioner has approached this Court.
(2.) ON 28.01.2013, this Court issued notice of motion to the State. Separate written statements have been filed by way of affidavit by DSP (Rural-II), Pathankot, SP (Security), Punjab and DSP (HQ), Pathankot. It is stated that security is provided by the State on the basis of threat perception and Security Review Committee evaluates threat perception on the basis of reports received from SSPs/Commissioners of Police in their Districts. On such recommendations security was withdrawn. In the written statement filed by the DSP (HQ), Pathankot, it has been stated that the petitioner and his wife had entered into an agreement to sell his residential property built on land forming part of khasra numbers mentioned, in village Sarai, District Pathankot on 19.7.2010 for a total sale consideration of Rs. 71 lacs out of which the petitioner had received earnest money of Rs. 25 lacs while agreeing to execute the sale deed on or before 12.10.2010. The dates were mutually extended. The petitioner received Rs.5 lacs each on two dates fixed for execution of sale deeds from the intended purchaser. On 30.4.2011 the due date for execution the purchaser remained present in Tehsil Complex for execution and registration of sale deed with balance money but neither the petitioner nor his wife turned up for the purpose. It transpires that the petitioner had availed loan against the said house pledging the original sale deed and he, his wife and son Aditya have been threatening to use his security gunman against the complainant purchaser. An FIR No. 87 dated 22.9.2011 has been registered for offences of cheating read with Section 34 IPC against the petitioner and his wife Manju Sharma. The petitioner is on bail. It is stated that at the time of registration of case No. 4 dated 17.3.2011 the petitioner did not level any allegations as made in this petition which are an after thought, vexatious and baseless. There is much more said in the petition and the responses which need not be gone into for the present.
(3.) AS a general principle security cover cannot be provided to persons to aid them in carrying out nefarious and unlawful activities. Nor can security cover be provided for social status. If the State on reports of threat perception carried out by field units takes a bona fide view that there is no danger to the life of the petitioner as he does not even reside at Pathankot most of the time, then the writ Court would have little say in the matter, so long as the decision is reached on relevant material and valid considerations consistent with protection of life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21. No ground for interference is warranted. The petition is dismissed. In case the occasion demands and the petitioner is put under threat he would be free to approach the State Government for protection and to review the threat perception. The respondent authorities including the SSP of the District are required to keep vigil and to respond to a call from the petitioner for re-evaluating the threat perception as the situation demands from time to time and to monitor through field reports any supervening events brought to its notice by the petitioner.;