The State is not bound to provide security guards to every citizen who applies for it, but the court can issue directions to the authorities concerned to provide security guards in cases of imminent threat to the freedom of free movement or right to life and personal liberty.

( 1 ) IN the aforesaid petitions common questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, the said petitions were heard together.

( 2 ) IN the Writ Petitions Nos. 16231 of 1995, 16419 of 1995 and 16441 of 1995, petitioners pray for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders passed by the respondents dated 9-6-1995, 10-6-1995 and 11-6-1995 respectively, whereby the security guards earlier provided to them are sought to be withdrawn by the respondents and in Writ Petn. No. 16439 of 1995 petitioner prays for a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to continue to provide the facility of security guard provided to him earlier.

( 3 ) IT is not necessary to give the facts of each case in detail, inasmuch as in all these cases basic facts are that petitioners were provided security guards in the form of gunners and shadows by the respondents, which are now being withdrawn, therefore, the petitioners were obliged to approach this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking the reliefs noted above.

( 4 ) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel at length. On the request made by the parties, I dispose of these petitions finally at this stage.

( 5 ) NEITHER any law nor any rule or regulation regulating the security guard or gunners etc. was brought to the notice of the court by the learned counsel appealing for the petitioners. Reliance was, however, placed on Article 19 (1) (d) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which are quoted below:-"19 (1)-All citizens shall have the right-- (a) to (c ). . . . . . . . . . . (d) to move freely throughout the territory of India. 6 No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. "it was contended that to make provision of security guards etc. to protect the lives of the citizens of this country, in the event of danger or threat, was sovereign duty of the State. It was further contended that every citizen has got freedom to move freely throughout the territory of India and has also got the right to life and personal liberty. Petitioners contended that there still existed danger and threat to their lives, therefore, respondents have no right to withdraw the security guards. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of their arguments also placed reliance upon the following cases:- (i) Saheli A Womens Resources Centre v. Commr. of Police, Delhi Head Quarter, (1990) 1 SCC 422: (AIR 1990 SC 513); (ii) Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1930 SC 1579; (iii) Challa Ramkonda Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh by District Collector, Kurnool, AIR 1989 Andh Pra 235; (iv) M/s. Inder Puri General Stores v. Union of India, AIR 1992 Jandk 11; (v) R. Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1989 Madras 205.

( 6 ) NONE of the aforesaid cases deal with the question of providing security guards by the State. They, on the other hand, relate to the right of the prisoners and convicts and liability of the State in cases of communal riots only. It is, therefore, not necessary for this court to deal with the same separately in detail. Aforesaid decisions are not relevant for the purpose of present case.

( 7 ) LEARNED counsel also placed reliance on various orders passed by this court directing the State to provide security guard etc. from time to time. A reference in this regard may be made to the order dated 8-8-1991 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 206/91 (Zainulab din v. State of U. P.) whereby this Court directed the authorities concerned to dispose of the representation made by the petitioner by means of speaking order and till then one armed guard, which was provided to him, was directed to remain with the petitioner. In the case of Brijesh Deep Bhatt v. State of U. P. (Civil Misc. Writ Petn. No. 1507-94) this Court passed similar order and further stayed withdrawal of the