IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.1058 of 2009 ASHOK CHOUDHARY, SON OF SRI MAHAVIR CHOUDHARY, RESIDENT OF MAHAVIR VILLA. MAHAVIR LANE, BUDHA COLONY, POLICE STATION BUDHA COLONY, DISTRICT- PATNA; EX MINISTER FOR STATE, PRISONS, BIHAR, PRESENTLY GENERAL SECRETARY, BIHAR PRADESH CONGRESS COMMITTEE, BIHAR. . . . . PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATNA, BIHAR. 5. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SHEIKHPURA, BIHAR. 6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SHEIKHPURA, BIHAR. 7. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SPECIAL BRANCH, BIHAR, PATNA. . . . . . RESPONDENTS. For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhay Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Vivekanand Singh-I, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, SC 16 Mr. Rajeev Kumar, AC to SC 16 ----------- 4/ 06.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner, who is former Member of Legislative Assembly, prays for quashing the decision dated 30.09.2009 of the District Security Committee, Sheikhpura, by which Security force provided to him was withdrawn. The petitioner further prays for providing adequate security in the light of the recommendations made by Government of India to respondent no.1 vide letter no. VI/23014/98/2006-VS dated 16.07.2008, as contained in Annexure- 7). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is holding the post of General Secretary in Bihar Pradesh Congress Committee. He was twice elected in the Assembly from Barbigha reserved Constituency. For one term he has also served as Minister in the State Government. Earlier father of the petitioner, namely Shri 2 Mahavir Chaudhary, represented Barbigha Assembly constituency, which then fell under Begusarai Parliamentary Constituency. Now Barbigha Assembly Constituency falls under Jamui Parliamentary Constituency. He further submits that on 26.12.2001, an attempt was made on his life but he luckily escaped, whereas nine occupants sitting on his vehicle were shot dead, giving rise to Sheikhpura P.S. case no. 290 of 2001, commonly infamous as Tanti Pul massacre. In the aforesaid case, the then Congress M.P. Late Rajo Singh and his son Sanjay Singh figured as accused. The animosity grew between the two political stalwarts and their supporters, so much so, in between 2001 and 2005, three further attempts were made on the life of the petitioner. He further submits that in view of these factors, petitioner was provided 1-3 Commando Force for his protection, which was subsequently enhanced to 1-5 with two carbine carrying constables vide Memo No. 1692/L-2 dated 31.03.2004 issued by the then Inspector General (Headquarter), Bihar, Patna. On 09.09.2005, unfortunately late Rajo Singh, Ex. M.P. was killed, giving rise to Sheikhpura P.S. case no. 243 of 2005. In the aforesaid case, the petitioner was also named as an accused. As the petitioner was named as an accused, the Security granted to him earlier was withdrawn. Learned counsel submits that after investigation, the police submitted final form in his favour. It is submitted at the bar that the final form was accepted as well by the court. Thereafter in changed circumstances, as he no more figured as an accused, the petitioner made representations for providing security guard. In view of threat perception, the petitioner was 3 provided one Hawildar and three constables’ personnel by way of security in the year 2007. The petitioner is now aggrieved by the decision of the District Security Committee, Sheikhpura dated 30.09.2009, whereby the security so provided has been withdrawn and that too on flimsy and non-existent. Learned counsel submits that the District Security Committee, Sheikhpura has withdrawn the security on four grounds, which are as follows: (i) Lack of adequate security, (ii) Petitioner is not resident of Sheikhpura district, (iii) Barbigha Assembly seat has been declared for unreserved category and (iv) The Central Government did not find threat perception to the life of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is based on total misreading of letter of the Central Government dated 16.07.2008 (Annexure-7). He submits that the Central Government has stated that the petitioner does not have any threat perception from any terrorist militant outfit in the country but it has not stated that he does not have threat perception from his political rivals and criminal elements. On the contrary, the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India stated that general threat to him from his political rivals and criminal elements cannot be ruled out and political opponent may take revenge at him at appropriate time. The Central Government, as such requested the Bihar Government to look into the matter and provide adequate security based on local threat perception. He submits that though the 4 petitioner belongs to reserved category, but seeing his popularity, his candidature has been declared by his party from Barbigha Assembly Constituency. He further submits that thus, the report of the District Security Committee, Sheikhpura is in fact based on misconceived factual matters. Counsel for the State submits that in the meeting dated 20.06.2010, the District Security Committee, Sheikhpura took a decision to provide temporary Security cover consisting of one Hawildar and one constable to the petitioner for a period of three months, which ended on 19.09.2010. A decision of the District Security Committee, Sheikhpura dated 20.06.2010 is annexed as Annexure-A Series to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Superintendent of Police, Sheikhpura. Having heard the counsel for the parties it would appear that the District Security Committee, Sheikhpura had temporarily granted security cover for a period of three months on 18.06.2010, which period has lapsed on 19.09.2010. The petitioner has also been declared a candidate from Congress Party from Barbigha Constituency, which falls under the Sheikhpura District. Further more, I find that the Department of Home, Government of India had not ruled out security threat to the life of the petitioner, though it had ruled out threat from any militant outfit. In view of the above, I direct the District Security Committee, Sheikhpura to consider the plea of extension of security granted to the petitioner earlier in its meeting dated 18.06.2010 in accordance with law preferably within a period of two weeks from 5 the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in view of Assembly election. However, this court has not expressed any opinion as to whether it would be the home district, which would be liable to decide security matter, in view of temporary extension itself granted by the District Security Committee, Sheikhpura itself. With the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed of. Let this order be sent to the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna and Superintendent of Police, Sheikhpura through Fax at the cost of the petitioner. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)