C.W.P. No.15384 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.15384 of 2010 Date of Decision. 07.12.2011 Kashmir Singh Patti, former President Sikh Judicial Commission, Amritsar .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. M.L. Saggar, Senior Advocate with Mr. G.P. Vashisht, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Navdeep Sukhna, DAG, Punjab. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. At the previous hearing on 01.12.2011, I had directed the State to give to me the report of security appraisal made for the petitioner. It has been given in sealed cover and I had directed it to be opened. The only information, which is available, is that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division has not recommended security. If a person is already provided with security and if it is being withdrawn, there should be some basis for such a decision and assessment of their security must take into account several considerations of the past activities, the position that he held and what in the perception of the person concerned the nature of danger which he might face. I have not the materials to see whether all the relevant materials have been C.W.P. No.15384 of 2010 -2- considered or not. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the State says that the Senior Superintendent of Police has reported that one gun-man is posted with the petitioner and it is further stated that his son Manjinder Singh informed that his father was only residing at Chandigarh and that the security given already is enough. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner denies that he stays only at Chandigarh and it is further stated that the issue of security cannot be tested on whether his son likes it or not. It is also contended that the son himself had not made any such statement. 4. The question of giving security to a person cannot be a Court affair except that the Court has to be assured that the necessary appraisals on requisite materials have been made by the authorities. 5. Through an interim order, the petitioner has been provided with one security person. The same shall continue. Though the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contends that there shall be an additional security, for me I have no reason to make a reappraisal of what the State has decided about the same. I would allow, therefore, that the security which is provided to the person through an interim order shall continue and the question of whether he should be withdrawn the security now provided or whether there is requirement of additional security, will be undertaken in the usual course whenever security appraisals are undertaken. For the present, I do not think there is a need for increasing the security more that what is provided to the petitioner. Whenever the security person, who has been assigned to the petitioner goes on leave, it shall be ensured that there is an C.W.P. No.15384 of 2010 -3- alternative security personnel provided to the petitioner. 6. The writ petition is disposed of. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 07, 2011 Pankaj*