CWP No.566 of 2011.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.566 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.01.2011 **** Darshan Singh Nainewal . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. DD Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner ***** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) (1). Notice of motion. Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, learned DAG Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass there is no necessity to call upon the respondents to file their counter-reply/affidavit at this stage. (2). The petitioner seeks a mandamus to direct the respondent-authorities to provide him security. It is alleged that after spending more than 10 years out of country, the petitioner has come back and has been elected as Member of the Punjab Pradesh Congress Committee. The petitioner alleges that he has a threat to CWP No.566 of 2011.doc - 2 – his life and needs protection as was granted to him before 1995 when he had gone abroad. (3). Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that security need be provided to a person only on the basis of actual threat perception which has to be assessed by a specialized agency. (4). The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 to assess the threat perception, if any, to the petitioner and take immediate remedial steps within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (5). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 13.01.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge