IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated:- 23.04.2009 Croam:- The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.REGUPATHI Crl.O.P. No.7099 of 2009 His Holiness, Sri Varada Ethiraja Zeear, Age 83 years, Sri Ethiraja Zeear Mutt, Sriperunmbudur, Tamil Nadu. ... Petitioner vs. 1. Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram. 2. Inspector of Police, Sriperumbudur Police Station, Kancheepuram District. ... Respondents Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the relief as stated therein. For petitioner : Mr.K.Venkatesan For respondents : Mr.A.Saravanan, Government Advocate. O R D E R
The petitioner herein seeks for a direction to the respondents to give him proper police protection by way of providing at least Two Armed Special Guards (Reserved Police) till lifetime.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, being the Head-Madathipathi of Ethiraja Zeear Mutt, Sriperumbudur, enjoyed protection of two armed special guards (reserved) from 1994 onwards and such security was suddenly withdrawn during 2006; that, when the authorities were approached, no proper explanation was given; that the petitioner, due to old age and fragility, suffering from physical ailments, needs security, for, he may have to safeguard the interests of the Mutt which owns extensive properties, movables and immovables; and that, at any rate, considering the fact that, being Head of a Mutt, previously he was provided two armed special guards and now, such security has been withdrawn all of a sudden, a positive direction may be issued so that the petitioner is given lifetime security.
3. Per contra, learned Government Advocate submits that the materials to substantiate ordering or withdrawal of security guards to the petitioner have not been furnished and that it is for the Executive to decide whether to extend the security sought for with or without costs by taking into account various factors including threat perception etc. and moreover, the petitioner cannot rush to this Court directly without approaching the authorities concerned.
4. I have carefully perused the materials available on record with reference to the submissions made on either side.
A representation, dated 10.02.2007, was presented to the Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram, simply stating that two armed special guards were provided to the petitioner from 1994 onwards and such security has been subsequently withdrawn; that, taking note of the feeble health condition of the petitioner, such facility granted by the Government should continue and that, without assigning any reason, the security provided was all of a sudden withdrawn; therefore, the request may be considered positively.
Apart from the above representation made to the first respondent, I do not find any material whatsoever to substantiate whether at all, on the previous occasion, the petitioner was granted two armed special guards from the wing of Reserved Police and under what circumstances and for what reasons, such security came to be withdrawn. At any rate, the present prayer must be addressed only to the Executive and it is for them to assess and decide on the request of the petitioner having regard to various relevant factors including the actual threat perception involved and in the event of any order being passed by the authority concerned and the petitioner finding fault with such order, he may very well approach the High Court challenging such order. On a meticulous perusal of the petition and the typed set of papers, I do not find any material or valid ground to grant the prayer sought for.
5. Consequently, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed, however, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the authority concerned.
JI
To
1. Superintendent of Police,
Sriperumbudur Police Station,
Kancheepuram District.
2. Inspector of Police,
Sriperumbudur Police Station,
Kancheepuram District