(Per Chief Justice)

1. This petition purports to be Public Interest Litigation. The petitioners, two in number, have prayed for a direction to quash and set aside the impugned decision of respondent no.1 Union of India to provide security cover of Central Reserve Police Force to respondent no.2. Mr.Mukesh Ambani.

2. The petitioners have relied upon several newspaper reports indicating that the Government of India in the Home Ministry has approved an armed squad of Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) commandos for security of respondent no.2 after he received threats from certain terrorist organizations including threats of attack at his residence in Mumbai. The petitioners do not dispute the threat perception but the only ground of challenge to the impugned decision of the Government of India is that the decision is not supported by any statutory provisions. It is submitted that the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), provides for constitution and regulation of armed Central Reserve Police Force for restoration and maintenance of law and order in any part of Indian Union and that the CRPF cannot be employed for giving protection to any individual.

3. In response to the query from the Court whether the issue raised in this petition is subject of any matter pending before the Supreme Court, learned Counsel for the petitioners states that there is no such proceeding pending before the Supreme Court regarding the subject matter of this petition.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has invited our attention to the provisions of the Act and particularly Section-2 (a) and Section 7 of the Act and Rule 25 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”).

Section 2(a) of the Act reads as under :

“(a) “active duty” means the duty to restore and preserve order in any local area in the event of any disturbance therein;” Section 7 of the Act reads as under :

“7. General duties of members of the Force. - (1) It shall be the duty of every member of the Force promptly to obey and to execute all orders and warrants lawfully issued to him by any competent authority, to detect and bring offenders to justice and to apprehend all persons whom he is legally authorised to apprehend and for whose apprehension sufficient grounds exist.

(2) Every member of the Force shall be liable to serve without and beyond, as well as within the territory of India.”

Rule 25(a) reads as under :-

“25. Primary Duties of the Force. (a) Members of the Force may be employed in any part of Indian Union for the restoration and maintenance of law and order, and for any other purpose as directed by the Central Government.”

It is submitted on the basis of the aforesaid provisions that since the primary duty of CRPF is to detect and bring offenders to justice along with restoration and maintenance of law and order, the Force cannot be deployed for providing security cover to a private individual.

5. On the other hand, Mr.Kevic Setalwad, learned Additional Solicitor General and Mr. Rafiq Dada, learned Senior Counsel for respondent no.2, have submitted that the words “maintenance of law and order” are wide enough to include the power of the Central Government to provide CRPF for security cover to any individual, whether official or private. It is submitted in the alternative, that in any view of the matter, the words “for any other purpose as directed by the Central Government” under Rule 25 are also broad enough to include such power of the Central Government.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits in rejoinder that the words “for any other purpose” have to be read ejusdem generis and, therefore, they would not include the power to provide security to a private individual.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that for dealing with the threat perception entertained by respondent no.2, it is open to respondent no.2 to approach the State Government and t