Maitreya Project Trust and Sri Atul Chopra vs State of U.P.

Amar Saran, J.—Heard Shri S.C. Mandhya learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate.

Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged in this writ petition.

This writ petition has been filed for a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the notice No. LIU/SU-A. Chopra/07 dated 8.3.2007 issued by Senior Superintendent of Police, Gorakhpur.

In the impugned notice it is mentioned that in pursuance of an order dated 27.2.2007 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 5520 of 2006 Gayur Hasan v. State of U.P. and Ors., security to 674 persons was directed to be withdrawn forthwith. As the petitioner''s name was mentioned in the list and this Court had called for a compliance report, hence security provided to the petitioner was being withdrawn forthwith. This writ petition was directed to be placed before this Bench along with Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 5520 of 2006 after an order was passed by a Bench consisting of Hon''ble Anjani Kumar and Hon''ble Dilip Gupta, JJ. dated 22.3.2007 after obtaining nomination from Hon''ble the Chief Justice.

It may be noted that in our order dated 27.2.2007, it has been observed as follows:

A list has been provided at Annexure-12, which shows that 674 persons have been provided security, not on the recommendation of the District Committee and consequential orders of the State Government, but they have been provided security by extraneous orders passed at the level of the SSP/SP or from some other level (which level has not been specified or identified in the affidavit). There seems to be no justification for continuing security to such categories of persons who have been provided security at the instance of extraneous sources which is not in accordance with the Government order dated 25.4.2001.

We, therefore, issue a'' mandamus directing that security shall be withdrawn forthwith from the said 675 persons.

It has further been mentioned in the said order as follows:

In the light of the aforesaid Government Order it appears that the indefinite grant of security by the order of the Courts is unwarranted and in our view the said orders should have come to an end after lapse of a reasonable period of time.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, sought to argue that security had been provided to the petitioner on the basis of Memorandum of Understanding with the State Government as the State Government has decided to set up a site for "Maitreya Project" at Kushinagar in Eastern U.P., which is the last resting place of Lord Buddha, where the world''s tallest statue of Lord Buddha having a height of 500 ft was to be constructed. The project was expected to bring foreign exchange and a Memorandum of Understanding had been entered, which was approved by the State Government on 9.5.2003.

It is mentioned at page No. 18 point No. 2.7.10 of the said Memorandum of Standing as under:

To provide security arrangements for the project sue as well as project personnel during acquisition, pre-construction, construction and operational phase.

To set up a designated police out-post at the premises for safety purpose.

We think that the said condition refers to providing security for the maintenance of the project and under its garb, no individual even if such person happens to be the Manager, can be provided with personal security for an endless period. Giving protection to public property and to the people of the State is indeed the function of the Government and the police, but providing security endlessly to a particular individual is simply granting largesse and patronage, which is wholly impermissible and is not allowed by the Government Order dated 25.4.2001 and amounts to clear violation of the directions given by this Court in Writ Petition No. 5520 of 2006 Gayur Hasan v. State of U.P. and Ors.

It was also mentioned in the writ petition that powerful mafia contractors and heavy weight politicians with armed escorts often visit the project at Gorakhpur and exert undue pressure on the project staff to give them contracts. Moreover, foreign technicians, international architects and Engineers also visit the place, but it is not averred anywhere that there was any attack or individual threat to the petitioner nor any document has been annexed to substantiate such an allegation. Hence, we think that continuing personal security to the petitioner would only amount to providing him a status symbol and it could not serve any other purpose.

In view of what has been indicated herein-above, there is no force in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.

It may be mentioned that no interim order was granted in this writ petition.