W.P. (C) No. 11529/2009 Page 1 36. *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 11529/2009 Date of decision: 9th March, 2010 SH. ASHWINI KUMAR CHOPRA ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Kamal Nighawan & Mr. Jitender Kumar, Advocates. versus U.O.I. & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, ASG with Mr. Jatan Singh & Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocates for UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R 1. Petitioner-Mr. Ashwini Kumar Chopra has filed the present Writ Petition for issue of Writ of Mandamus to the respondents to withdraw the notices/orders passed by them downgrading his security cover from Z+ to Z and cancellation of allotment of government accommodation at 34, Lodhi Estate, New Delhi. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that downgrading of security cover ignores real and apparent threats to the life of the petitioner and attempts made to revive terrorism in Punjab. Letter dated 20th May, 2009 has been written by Additional Director General of Police (Intelligence), Punjab, Chandigarh. It is further submitted that acts of the respondents violate Article 21 of the Constitution of India and in this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has made reference to Maneka W.P. (C) No. 11529/2009 Page 2 Gandhi versus Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597. It is also submitted that the respondents are discriminating as Z+ security cover has not been withdrawn from others. 3. The petitioner was earlier allotted 9, Mahadev Road, Type VI General Pool accommodation on 28th March, 1998 on security ground after approval of the then Minister for Estate and Urban Development on payment of market rent on leave and licence basis. Subsequently, on 23rd June, 1998, bungalow no. 34, Lodhi Estate, New Delhi was allotted to him on changed basis. 4. The petitioner thereafter filed two Writ Petitions in this Court being Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 490/2000 and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2375/2001 against cancellation of allotment, withdrawal of security cover, etc. 5. Policy guidelines dated 27th December, 2000 were prepared with the approval of the Cabinet Committee of Allotments. The said policy guidelines provided for allotment of government residential accommodation on security grounds to private persons who have been provided SPG cover on payment of license fee as revised from time to time. 6. On the basis of the policy guidelines, the case of the petitioner was examined and it was decided that the petitioner was required to give Z+ category security with NSG. Accordingly, by the letter dated 21st November, 2002 the petitioner was allowed to retain the government accommodation on security ground but subject to government’s right to review the same after one year. On the basis of the said letter, the said two writ petitions were disposed of. 7. Petitioner subsequently filed another Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4480/2004 which was disposed of on 31st August, 2004 after recording that the government had decided to allow the petitioner to retain the aforesaid W.P. (C) No. 11529/2009 Page 3 accommodation for a period of further one year with the approval of the competent authority. 8. The petitioner has continued to retain the said accommodation. In 2009, the government reviewed threat perception in several cases and thereafter has decided to downgrade the security cover granted to the petitioner from Z+ security to Z security and withdraw NSG cover. In view of the said decision, allotment of official residential accommodation 34, Lodhi Estate, New Delhi has not been further renewed. 9. The original file produced shows that the said down grade was made by Security Categorization Committee in the meetings held on 16th July, 2009 and 21st July, 2009 under the Chairmanship of Union Home Secretary to consider the recommendation of Protection Review Group in the meetings held on 26th May, 2009 and 12th June, 2009. Representatives of Cabinet Secretariat, Information Bureau and Delhi Police attended the said meetings. The said Committee had reviewed the entire list of central protectees (threat based). The said reconsideration was made on the basis of guidelines/principles, which have been mentioned. Thereafter, some discrepancies as pointed out were considered and orders have been passed after approval from the competent authority. In the case of the petitioner, the Security Categorization Committee after reviewing the entire security arrangement (threat based) has downgraded the security to Z from the Z+ and NSG cover has been withdrawn. 10. The petitioner was given Z+ security, NSG cover and official government accommodation in 1998. He has enjoyed the said benefits for last ten years. The security cover, protection and accommodation cannot continue for infinite period. These have to be reviewed periodically. Now the respondents have reviewed the matter and have withdrawn NSG cover and have downgraded the petitioner’s security from Z+ to Z. The same has W.P. (C) No. 11529/2009 Page 4 been done on the basis of the recommendation of the Security Categorization Committee which had reviewed the all cases keeping in view the threat perception. It cannot be said that the respondents are not cautious and aware of their obligations and responsibilities. The petitioner has along with the writ petition filed a chart giving details of persons associated with the concerned newspaper, who were killed. The said list shows that the last reported incident was in the year 1993. It may be appropriate here to reproduce the observations made by a single Judge of this Court in Bhim Singh versus Union of India and Another, 2000 (55) DRJ 57 while dealing with the question of downgrading security/security cover:- “6………….The ground of a particular category of security cover or its upgradation are matters essentially in the domain of the concerned government agencies and this is not a matter in which the court would interfere. There is also no merit in the contention that the policy decision by the Central Government to delink the provision of government accommodation with the security cover expect(sic) in the matter of those entitled to S.P.G. Protection is violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner. The respondents shall be free to proceed with the proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1971 and for eviction and to recover damages if any, as per law. The amount paid by the petitioner in these proceedings would be subject to adjustment. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.” 11. Security and threat perception in each case is different. Article 14 prevents discrimination but does not require unequals to be treated similarly. Further, Article 14 is positive in nature and no direction can be issued to commit an illegality merely because in other cases it is alleged W.P. (C) No. 11529/2009 Page 5 that illegalities have been committed. It is the case of the respondents that no illegalities have been committed. However, I am not required to decide and go into this question. Protection and security cover of Z category is still provided to the petitioner. There is no violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. 12. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. SANJIV KHANNA, J. MARCH 09, 2010 VKR