Allahabad High Court
MUKESH SIDDHARTHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The court upheld the relief granted to the petitioner and disposed of the writ petition.
Summary
Petitioner Mukesh Siddharth filed a writ petition seeking relief from a demand by the Senior Superintendent of Police for 100% cost of security provided to him. The police later issued a revised demand of 10% cost on 1 August 2026. The petitioner, through counsel Aditya Prasad Mishra, argued that the demand was excessive and sought judicial interference. The High Court, after considering the petition, found that the petitioner was entitled to security without being burdened by the full cost and granted relief. The court subsequently disposed of the writ petition, confirming the relief granted earlier.
Issues considered
- Whether the police can demand 100% cost for providing security to a petitioner
- Whether a revised demand of 10% cost is permissible under law
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to security without bearing the cost
Subjects
- security
- police
- cost of security
- writ petition
- relief
- Uttar Pradesh
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 23867 of 2026
Mukesh Siddharth
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Aditya Prasad Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 29
HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J.
HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J.
1. Mr. Aditya Prasad Mishra, learned advocate appearing for petitioner
hands up writing dated 1st August, 2026 issued by the police authority,
revising the demand to 10%. Mrs. Archana Tyagi, learned advocate,
Additional Chief Standing Counsel appears for State.
2. Paragraph 1 from our earlier order dated 17th August, 2026 is
reproduced below.
"1. Mr. Aditya Prasad Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of
petitioner and submits, his client requires security. Respondent no.3 (the
Senior Superintendent of Police) by communication dated 20th May, 2026
demanded 100% cost for purpose of providing security to his client. On
query Mr. Mishra submits, his client was provided with security and now
there has been disruption on demand of cost. He seeks interference. "
Petitioner has found his relief.
3. The writ petition is disposed of.
(Arindam Sinha,J.)
(Satya Veer Singh,J.)
September 8, 2026
Jaswant
Digitally signed by :-
JASWANT KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…