Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—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 v. 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.

4. The respondent No. 1 further contended that the State Level Committee considered the recommendation of the District Level Committee on 30th January, 2015 and found that the District Level Committee did not indicate the actual threat perception to the life of the petitioner except the apprehension being felt by him and, accordingly, directed the District Level Committee to submit a fresh report with regard to the threat perception existing, if any, on the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 further submitted that the Divisional Level Committee submitted a report dated 16th March, 2015 indicating that no threat perception exists and, therefore, declined to recommend any security to the petitioner. Based on the said report of the Divisional Level Committee, the State Level Committee took a decision on 25th March, 2015 accepting the report of the Divisional Level Committee and declined to provide security to the petitioner.

5. In the light of the aforesaid contention, we have heard Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K. Goel, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

6. Even though the relief claimed in the writ petition has been given and the writ petition has become infructuous, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the State Government is illegal and is liable to be quashed. We accordingly, permitted the learned counsel to the petitione