IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 18529 of 2010. [O&M] Date of Decision: 15th December, 2010. Smt. Surjit Kaur Barnala & Anr. Petitioners through Mr. Vikram Chaudhary, Advocate with Mr. Parvez Chugh, Advocate. Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents through Mr. H.S.Brar, Addl.AG, Punjab. 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] The petitioners seek a Mandamus to direct the State of Punjab and its Police Authorities to provide them adequate security in the wake of grave and imminent threat to their lives and liberty. A further direction to provide sophisticated weapons along with reliable bullet proof vehicles to the security personnel giving security cover to the petitioners has also been sought. [2]. The first petitioner is the wife of a former Chief Minister of Punjab, who is presently holding the constitutional office of the Governor of Tamil Nadu State. The second petitioner is son of the said former Chief Minister and himself a former MLA. [3]. While calling upon the respondents, they were directed to produce the records pertaining to the assessment of threat perception to the petitioners. [4]. In their reply/affidavit dated 15.11.2010, the respondents have fairly acknowledged that as per the recommendations made by the Security Review Committee after evaluation of the threat perception, the petitioners need to be provided adequate security which has actually been restored/additionally provided as per the averments made in the affidavit. In order to apprise this Court with complete details of the security personnel deployed with the petitioners, Mr. Gurinderjit Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police [Security], Punjab has furnished the following list of police officials who are posted on security duty with the petitioners:- “With petitioner No.1:- PSOs 1. HC [PR] Bholu Ram No. 715/BNL 2. CT Roop Lal No. 80/989 Resi. Guard located at Barnala:- 1. HC Balbir Singh No. 252/BNL 2. HC [PR] Darshan Singh No. 409/BNL 3. CT Harjinder Singh No. 354/BNL 4. CT Bhupinder Singh No. 670/BNL 5. CT Balraj Singh No. 650/BNL With Petitioner No.2:- PSOs 1. HC Jatinder Singh No.2/157 IRB 2. CT Lakhwinder Singh 2/606 IRB 3. CT Raghbir Chand No. 2/328 IRB 4. CT Shiv Karan No.2/365 IRB Residence Guard located at Dhuri, District Sangrur 1. HC Darbara Singh No. 812/SGR 2. HC [PR] Dilbag Singh 1183/SGR 3. CT Naib Singh No. 477/SGR [5]. In my considered view, the security cover presently provided to the petitioners can be given trial unless found inadequate and/or subject to its further review, if so required in the event of increase in the threat perception. It is, however, directed that if any of the security personnel mentioned above proceeds on long leave and/or training etc., the respondents shall provide a substitute/ replacement in advance. [6]. So far as the requirement of police vehicle like a Zypsy for the police personnel is concerned, I deem it appropriate to direct the Additional Director General of Police [Security], Punjab to objectively consider such a requirement to ensure a safe security cover to the petitioners. Suffice it to observe that if the 'category' of security cover given to the petitioners includes the provision of a police vehicle, the same shall be restored immediately and if it is not so required, the Additional Director General of Police [Security], Punjab shall consider its desirability in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. [7]. Disposed of. Dasti. December 15, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE