HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 19380 of 2025 Court No. - 4 HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J. HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. 2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 13.05.2025 by means of which the petitioner has been called upon to pay an amount of Rs. 4,11,927/- for a duration of six months towards the expenses for providing one security guard to the petitioner in pursuance of the government order dated 08.05.2025. Further the petitioner has also challenged the validity of the government order dated 08.05.2025 by means of which a decision has been taken to enhance the amount payable by the petitioner and others in lieu of the security provided to them. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner and his family were under continuous threat perception and in this regard two FIRs were also lodged in the year 1995 and in the year 2000. Further in view of the threat perception, a security cover in the shape of a security guard was provided to the petitioner from 12.02.2019 to 17.10.2020, then from 02.06.2022 to 03.05.2023 and lastly from 26.09.2024 till the date of the filing of the present writ petition. 4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the government order dated 08.05.2026 on account of the fact that for availing services of a Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akhand Pratap Tripathi, Pawan Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Dilip Kumar Sonkar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) security guard, the amount payable has been enhanced to 50 % of the cost of the security personnel though earlier it used to be 10%. 5. It is further contended that the petitioner is having an annual income of Rs. 6,12,830/- and under the circumstances, it is not possible for the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs. 4,11, 927 for the duration of six months for the security being provided. It is also contended that the amount payable by the petitioner towards the security availed has been enhanced from 10% of the cost of the security personnel to 50 % and the same is arbitrary. 6. On the perusal of the records this Court finds that as per own showing of the petitioner admittedly there were two incidents one in the year 1995 and the other in the year 2000 when allegedly there was a threat to life of the petitioner. No case whatsoever has been made out as to how there is a life threat to the petitioner and his family after a passage of 25 years thereafter. 7. Apparently it seems that petitioner who is a member of the U.P. Khadi Gramin Udyog Board is an eminent personality as averred in the petition itself hence, apparently the petitioner wants security more as status symbol rather than because of some serious life threat, that too at the expense of the public exchequer. 8. Besides, the perusal of the government order dated 08.05.2025 also reveals that the amount payable for availing security in respect of two other persons mentioned in the government order has also been enhanced to 100% and 50 % respectively as such it is evident that there is no element of bias involved, as alleged by the petitioner. 9. Further this court is of the view that the determination of the amount payable for availing security cover lies in the domain of the respondents and this Court is not equipped to determine the same. The petitioner has also failed to make out any case as to how the demand raised by means of the impugned order is arbitrary or unreasonable as the petitioner has still not been made liable to pay WRIC No. 19380 of 2025 2 for the entire cost of the security personnel and the petitioner would continue to enjoy the security cover at the expense of the respondents. 10. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the amount so payable by the petitioner could have been enhanced only after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, but we are not in agreement with the contention so raised and for the purpose that the petitioner has no legal right to claim the said benefit. 11. Before we depart, we would like to place reliance on some judgments of the Apex Court and this Court in respect of providing security cover by the Government. In this regard, the Apex Court in the case of Ramveer Upadhyay Vs. R.M. Srivastava and others, 2015 (13) SCC 370 arising out of a case where Z category security of a Minister in the State of U.P. had been downgraded after he ceased to be a Minister, the Hon'ble Court had held as under: "6. However, in our experience, we have hardly seen any security of "Z" or "Y" category provided to any ordinary citizen, howsoever grave the threat perception or imminent danger may be to the person concerned. The petitioner, however, has claimed it obviously as a "privileged class" by virtue of being an ex-Minister which at times, may be justified even to an ex-Minister or any other dignitary, considering the nature and function of the duties which he had discharged, which could facilitate the assessment of his threat perception even after laying down the office. But what exactly is his threat perception and whether the same is grave in nature, obviously will have to be left to be decided by the authorities including the authorities of the State or the Centre which may include even the Intelligence Bureau or any other authority concerned which is entitled to assess the threat perception of an individual. But insofar as the court of law is concerned, it would obviously be in a predicament to come to any conclusion as to whether the threat perception alleged by a person claiming security is grave or otherwise which would hold him entitled to the security of a greater degree, since this is clearly a question of factual nature to be dealt with by the authorities entrusted with the duty to provide security after assessing the need and genuineness of the threat to any individual. WRIC No. 19380 of 2025 3 12. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M.A. Khan Chaman Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2004 SCC Online All 373, wherein the petitioner had sought continuous security that too free of cost, this Court had held as under: "There is no right of the petitioner to enjoy this privilege ad infinitum. It is regrettable that on flimsy grounds people exercise undue influence and manage to secure gunners and security at State expense and at tax payers cost. In fact acquisition of a gunner has begun to be treated as a status symbol. This practice must be brought to an end. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner is entitled as a matter of right to be provided a security guard at State expense or at reduced cost" 13. Another Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 10867(MB) of 2021 (Abhishek Tiwari, Vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 04.08.2021, wherein the petitioner had been refused personal security by the competent authority while dismissing the writ petition, this Court had held as under: "29. As a matter of principle, private individuals should not be given security at State cost unless there are compelling transparent reasons, which warrant such protection, especially if the threat is linked to some public or national service they have rendered and, the security should be granted to such persons until the threat abates. But, if the threat perception is not real, it would not be proper for the Government to grant security at the cost of taxpayers money and to create a privileged class. In a democratic country governed by rule of law and written Constitution providing security at State expense ought not to become an act of patronage to create a coterie of ?obliged? and ?loyal? persons. The limited public resources must be used carefully for welfare schemes and not in creating a privileged class. From a report of Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPR&D), police think tank of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), more than 20,000 additional policemen than the sanctioned strength were deployed in VIP protection duty in the year 2019. As per the report, Data on Police Organizations, 2019, as many as 66,043 policemen were deployed to protect 19,467 Ministers, Members of Parliament, Judges, Bureaucrats and other personalities and, thus number is growing up in every year. 32. This Court, while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot substitute its decision to the decision of the competent Authority in respect of threat perception of the petitioner to his life and property. From the facts as WRIC No. 19380 of 2025 4 emanate from the record, it is evident that the petitioner does not face any real threat to his life or property. He has been asking for security as authority of symbol to flaunt his status a VIP. This practice, creating a privileged class on State expense and taxpayers money, is to be deprecated. It is, therefore, provided that the threat perception has to be real and the Security Committee has to assess the threat perception, taking into consideration the reports from Intelligence Unit, the concerned police station and past record of the applicant. The security should be provided only to those who face real threat to their life for having done some work in the interest of the society or the nation from terrorist/naxalite or organized gangs and not otherwise. A personal enmity with other would not come within the parameters for assessing the threat perception of the applicant for providing him security. " 14. Under the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. 15. Accordingly the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 16. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to avail other remedies in respect of his grievances as available to him under law. May 6, 2026 Nadeem WRIC No. 19380 of 2025 5 (Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Neeraj Tiwari,J.) Digitally signed by :- NADEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad