Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 85261 (ALL)

MANOJ KUMAR PANDEY v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 2 OTHERS

WRIC/27284/2025 · 2025-09-17

Avnish Saxena, Saurabh Dwivedi Registrar J Cpc

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 27284 of 2025 Court No. - 39 HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J. HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J. 1. Mr. Amit Kumar, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, under challenge is order dated 2nd April, 2025 made by respondent no.1. He points out, there was interim security provided per decision dated 26th March, 2025 of the committee. Without assigning reason, by impugned order, no threat perception and requirement of security was alleged and the security withdrawn. 2. Mr. Mohan Srivastava, learned advocate, Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State and submits, it will appear from interim order made by the committee that interim security was provided awaiting final decision. On inquiry final decision has been taken. It is of no requirement. There be no interference. 3. Perused impugned final order. It does not give any illumination regarding reason for issuance of order of interim protection and thereafter, material relied upon to find there is no requirement. On query Mr. Kumar submits, his client had earlier moved this Court to compel the authority to consider his client's representation for providing security. On inaction he had filed for contempt. Upon issuance of contempt notice, interim security was provided. 4. The authority is presumed to have had prima facie satisfaction to provide interim security. Issuance of notice on contempt to compel the authority to consider petitioner's representation cannot be a reason for providing security. All the more we find , impugned order does not bear Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Amit Kumar, Neetu Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Manoj Kumar Pandey .....Petitioner(s) State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) reason. 5. Impugned order is set aside and quashed. The interim security to continue. Respondent no.1 will pass fresh order disclosing reasons for decision taken, either way. 6. The writ petition is disposed of. September 18, 2025 Abhishek Sri. WRIC No. 27284 of 2025 2 (Arindam Sinha,J.) (Avnish Saxena,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK RANJAN SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad