CHANDRADEEP KUMAR v. The State of Bihar, Through The Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna

The State of Bihar, Through The Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.

Additional Director General of Police (Security)-cum-Chairman Special Security Committee, Bihar, Patna

Deputy Inspector General Police (Security), Bihar, Patna.

The District Magistrate, Begusarai. The Superintendent of Police, Begusarai. Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Sadar Begusarai Special Branch Camp, Begusarai. The District Special Branch Officer Barauni Industrial Area 01, Begusarai. President Refinery OP, Barauni. ... ... Respondents

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s For the Respondent/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER Mr.Dr. Binay Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr.Iqbal Asif Niazi, AC to GP-5 : : 2 21-12-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Iqbal Asif Niazi, learned AC to GP-5 for the State. In this writ application, the petitioner is seeking the following reliefs:- “ (i) For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashment of Memo no. 2062 dated 28.07.2022 issued by office of respondent no. 6 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been informed that respondent Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1232 of 2022(2) dt.21-12-2022 no. 3 who is chariman of Special Security Committee, Bihar has turned down the application of the petitioner for providing Body guard. (ii) For a direction upon respondent no.3 to consider the recommendations of respondents no.

9, 8, 7, 6 and 5 for making available bodyguard to the petitioner considering threat perception to the life and liberty of the petitioner on payment basis. (iii) For holding that in the absence of personal security the life and property of the petitioner who is an up and coming businessman in Begusarai running factories at Barauni Industrial Estate is in imminent danger from criminals round the clock. (iv) For holding that the state is bound to protect the life and liberty of ever human being whether a citizen or otherwise and it can not permit any body to threatened another person. (v) For holding that the rejection of the request for providing bodyguard to the petitioner on payment basis is denial of right to life and property which is a fundamental right u/a 21 of constitution of India and is also in the teeth of Article 14 of the Constitution. (vi) For any other relief/ reliefs, the petitioner may be found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” It is the case of the petitioner that his request to provide a security guard on payment was examined by the Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1232 of 2022(2) dt.21-12-2022 District Special Branch Officer, Begusarai.

The said Officer reiterated vide memo no. 59 of 2022 dated 24.04.2022 that considering the threat perception to the life and property of the petitioner, he may be provided a security guard on payment of cost. The grievance of the petitioner is that he had conveyed his threat to all the concerned officials and in this regard even the President of the Refinery had written a letter to respondent no. 6 vide Annexure ‘6’ to the writ application but surprisingly the recommendation made in favour of the petitioner vide Annexure ‘6’ was not looked into and the petitioner has been communicated vide memo no.2062 dated

28.07.2022 Annexure ‘7’ to the writ application, which is being reproduced hereunder:-

lsok esa Jh pUnznhi dqekj] firk-Lo0 fl; kjke flag] lk0-yk[kks okMZ ua0-14] iks0-yk[kks Fkkuk-yk[kks vks0ih0] ftyk-csxwljk;A izlax%& iqfyl mi-egkfujh{kd (lqj{kk), fcgkj, iVuk dk; kZy; dk i=kad- fo0lq0l0dks0 /2022/ 875 fnukad- 30-06-2022 fo’k;%& vaxj{kd izfrfu; qDr ugha djus ds laca/k esaA mi; ZqDr izlaxk/khu fo’k; ds laca/k esa lwfpr djuk gS fd x`g foHkkx dk ladYi la0& 3663 fnukad 05-02-2017 ds vuq:i fnukad& 30-06-2022 dks vij iqfyl egkfuns

kd (lqj{kk)-lg&v/;{k fo” ks’k lqj{kk lfefr egksn; fcgkj dh v/; {krk esa gqbZ cSBd esa fy, x;s fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj vkidks vaxj{kd miyC/k ugha djkus dk vkns” k izkIr gqvk gSA vr% lknj lwpukFkZ izsf’krA ifjpkjh izoj] iqfyl dsUnz] csxwljk;A ” Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1232 of 2022(2) dt.21-12-2022 It is, thus, the case of the petitioner that the Special Security Committee headed by the Additional Director General (Security) has rejected the request of the petitioner to provide a security guard without looking into the materials available on the record and the order has been passed in a mechanical manner without application of judicious mind. Mr. Iqbal Asif Niazi, learned AC to GP-5 for the State has though opposed this writ application but he is unable to defend Annexure ‘7’ to the writ application as the fact is that Annexure ‘7’ does not contain any reason and nothing may be deciphered from the said communication. To this Court, it appears that Special Security Committee has failed to appreciate that in India the role of government is that of the parent of the citizens and principle of parens patriae applies when it comes to protect and secure the life, liberty and property of the citizens of the country. The Committee had before it the recommendation of a local police officer who had investigated into the threat perception of the petitioner, there was no reason for the Committee and at least Annexure ‘7’ nowhere discloses any such reason for rejecting the request of the petitioner. For these reasons, the communication issued under signature of ifjpkjh izoj] police Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1232 of 2022(2) dt.21-12-2022 centre, Begusarai as contained in Memo no. 2062 dated