Back
RAJAN ROY, MANISH KUMAR
Nitin Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the facts leading to the petitioner's security cover. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. the evaluation of threat perception and subsequent actions. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. withdrawal of security cover and procedural errors. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. court's observations on future security withdrawal procedures. (Para 12 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 16) |
JUDGMENT
Rajan Roy, J.
Heard Shri Anand Mani Tripathi along with Shri S.M. Singh Royekwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Manish Mishra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
2. This writ petition was filed on 12.01.2023 seeking the following relief:-
3. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner is a Contractor in a Construction Company and has been so for quite sometime, at least since 2011, although, the Company has changed from time to time. He was granted security cover under the inte
Security provision is contingent on current threat assessments, which must be evaluated by the Security Review Committee, and not guaranteed based on past positions.
Assessment of real threat perception and granting security at the state's cost only in compelling cases linked to public or national service.
Profession - Refusal to provide petitioner personal security - High court while exercising writ jurisdiction under Art 226 of Constitution, cannot substitute its decision to decision of competent Aut....
Police protection is not a right for individuals involved in personal disputes and should be based on genuine threat assessments.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
