Thursday, Sep 24, 2020 | Last Update : 05:01 AM IST

183rd Day Of Lockdown

Maharashtra122438091634833015 Andhra Pradesh6317495518215410 Tamil Nadu5473374919718871 Karnataka5268764233778145 Uttar Pradesh3588932895945135 Delhi2492592133045014 West Bengal2283021989834421 Odisha184122149379763 Telangana1726081419301042 Bihar169856155824870 Assam159320129130578 Kerala13863398720554 Gujarat1247671051913337 Rajasthan116881972841352 Haryana113075908841177 Madhya Pradesh108167836182007 Punjab99930754092860 Chhatisgarh8618347653680 Jharkhand7267358543626 Jammu and Kashmir65026421151024 Uttarakhand4177729000501 Goa2875322726360 Puducherry2319118065467 Tripura2227215441245 Himachal Pradesh124387836125 Chandigarh102987411123 Manipur9010683859 Arunachal Pradesh7385540813 Nagaland5544445110 Meghalaya4733252838 Sikkim2447190529 Mizoram158510120
  Metros   Mumbai  08 Apr 2017  Never questioned ministers’ security: Bombay HC

Never questioned ministers’ security: Bombay HC

THE ASIAN AGE.
Published : Apr 8, 2017, 1:10 am IST
Updated : Apr 8, 2017, 1:10 am IST

A division bench rapped the joint home secretary for writing to the DGP seeking his opinion on continuing the police protection to the ministers.

Bombay High Court. (Photo: PTI)
 Bombay High Court. (Photo: PTI)

Mumbai: The Bombay high court on Friday pulled up the joint secretary of state home department for writing a letter to the Director general of police (DGP),  Maharashtra seeking his opinion on withdrawing the security of people holding constitutional posts if they do not pay for their security cover provided by the government. The court was hearing a PIL, which did not involve the issue of security for people holding constitutional posts (judges, ministers, IAS officer, etc.) but the officer “misrepresented” the high court order.

During the hearing, even the petitioner’s advocate Sunny Punamiya clarified that his petition was restricted only to recovery of pending dues from VVIPs like builders, ex-MLAs and ex-MPs, who do not hold constitutional posts.

 

The division bench headed by Chief Justice Manjula Chellur of Bombay high court pulled up the state’s joint home secretary after examining the letter written by him to the DGP.

“This officer is not fit for this post, either he doesn’t understand court proceedings, or he has indulged in mischief,” said Chief Justice Chellur. The high court added, “This officer is joint secretary of the home department which handles important matters pertaining to security of the state.”

The bench told the state government’s pleader Abhinandan Vagyani to ask the home secretary to appear before the court. After the lunch hour, the high court judges spoke to home secretary in their chambers in the presence of joint secretary of home department.

 

The high court said that though it had not passed any such direction; the letter written to DGP in a way would give an impression that it was written as per court’s order.

During the hearing, the government counsel informed that the government has decided to take fresh suggestions from the DGP, the commissioners of police and the Revenue Department on the issue and take a fresh policy decision.

Tags: bombay high court, dgp, pil
Location: India, Maharashtra, Mumbai (Bombay)