IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 563 of 2010. [O&M] Date of Decision: 9th March, 2011. Gurpreet Singh Kangar Petitioner through Mr. Vikram Chaudhary, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents through Ms. Monica Chhibar, DAG, 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 petitioner is a Member of the Punjab Legislative Assembly. He is aggrieved by the order dated 24.12.2009 [Annexure P-1] declining him the Police Commandoes as Security Personnel and a bullet proof vehicle. The petitioner alleges that his life and liberty is threatened at the hands of the 8th respondent who is a former Minister and belongs to the political party in power. The petitioner has also referred to the details of the FIRs registered against the close associates of respondent No. 8. It is emphasized that the life and liberty of the petitioner as well as his family members and workers/associates are endangered by the henchmen of respondent No. 8 who are of criminal background. The respondents have filed their reply/affidavit and pursuant to the orders passed by this Court from time to time, additional affidavits have been filed furnishing latest reports on the assessment of threat perception to the petitioner. It is also stated that four Security Personnel have already been deployed with the petitioner. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and after going through the material on record, I am of the considered view that the assessment of threat perception, if any, to a public man has to be assessed by the Experts/Specialized Wings of the State Agencies in a fair, impartial and objective manner. The State is under obligation to protect the life and liberty of all its citizens irrespective of their acclaimed status in the society. Since the authorities assigned the task of assessing the threat perception have stated on oath that for the time being security cover provided to the petitioner is sufficient, it would not be be expedient for this Court to tinker with that opinion beyond the domain of the power of judicial review. The most appropriate course would be to give liberty to petitioner to submit a representation highlighting the additional facts and circumstances, if any, which might justify the expansion of security cover already provided to him. In the event of such a representation by the petitioner, the Additional Director General of Police [Security], Punjab is directed to consider the same objectively and as per the defined parameters, uninfluenced of the previous decisions taken in the matter. Suffice it to observe that if on re- assessment of the threat perception, additional protection is required to be provided, the needful shall be done forthwith. The representation of the petitioner shall be considered within one month from the date it is received. Disposed of. Dasti. March 09, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE