WP(C) 6001/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T VAIPHEI Heard Mr AK Bhattacharjee, the learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr AK Choudhury, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr G Soren, the l earned counsel for State respondents. The case of the petitioner is that he is carrying on the business of ins tallation and operation of weighbridge in collaboration with the Transport Depar tment, Government of Assam at Srirampur in the district of Kokrajhar, Assam sinc e 2001 and that as the aforesaid place is predominantly politically disturbed ar ea, in the year 2007, he was compelled to approach the Assam Police for providin g him with Personal Security Officer (PSO) for protection of his life and libert y. In fact, by virtue of Clause 11 of the Deed of Agreement dated 7.5.2003 exec uted between the firm of the petitioner, namely, M/s Bikalpa Enterprise and the Transport Department, Govt. of Assam, it was stipulated that the State Govt. wou ld provide necessary security for the project at its own cost. It was pursuant to this agreement that the State respondents provided one PSO to him, which was subsequently increased to two PSOs when he received threat of kidnapping of his daughter. According to the petitioner, recently when he was suffering from deng ue fever, the State respondents unilaterally and without prior intimation withdr ew the aforesaid PSOs from him thereby rendering him vulnerable: his free moveme nt has been restricted and he now apprehends threat on his life and liberty. Th e representation made by the respondent authorities to restore the PSOs did not evoke any positive response whereupon this writ petition has been filed by him. The State respondents have now filed their affidavit-in-opposition. The stand taken by the State respondents therein is that the withdrawal, which was affecte d with the approval of the higher authority, was due to the reported illegal act ivities of the petitioner. The Superintendent of Police, Kokrajhar had informed that the petitioner visited Srirampur under Gosaigaon PS with his PSOs and had siphoned off a huge amount of money from some businessmen and had been indulging in fraudulent activities taking advantage of PSOs provided to him. The represe ntation submitted by him has been duly inquired into and it was decided to asses s the threat perception after receiving a report from the Superintendent of Poli ce, Kokrajhar, whereafter the same would be put up before the SSCR for decision. The State respondents categorically deny that the withdrawal is politically mo tivated or is at the behest of some powerful lobbies belonging to his business r ivals. The petitioner filed his affidavit-in-reply in which he denied the conte ntions of the State respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition. The fact that the petitioner was provided with personnel security office rs in terms of the agreement executed between his firm and the Transport Departm ent, Govt. of Assam remains undisputed. Nowhere in the affidavit-in-opposition of the State respondents is it mentioned that the petitioner is not under threat or his life is in danger. The only ground, which can be gathered from the affi davit-in-opposition for withdrawing the PSOs from him appears to be alleged indu lgence of the petitioner in fraudulent activities which he did by taking advanta ge of the PSOs provided to him. In my opinion, the ground for withdrawal of PSO s from the petitioner is vague and is not substantiated by any evidence. Once t he petitioner was found to have been in need of security and was accordingly pro vided with the PSOs, such facilities cannot be withdrawn until and unless there is definite evidence that he no longer requires such security. Mere allegation that he has been taking advantage of the PSOs provided to him without any materi al to substantiate the allegation could not be the basis for withdrawal of the P SOs from him. As there is no evidence on record to justify the conclusion of th e State respondents that the petitioner was taking advantage of the PSOs provide d to him for siphoning off a huge amount of money from some businessmen or for i ndulging in fraudulent activities, the decision of the State respondents in with drawing the PSOs from the petitioner is, therefore, arbitrary. For the reasons stated in the foregoing, this writ petition succeeds. Th e State respondents are directed to restore the two Personnel Security Officers provided to him earlier within a period of seven days from the date of receipt o f this order.