IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1369 of 2009 BHOLA SINGH . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 7. 09.12.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the refusal of the respondents to provide him Security Guards taking into consideration the serious threat perception to his life. It is submitted that the petitioner was a Prakhand Pramukh and has certain business interests. He has been receiving threats and extortion calls for which he applied for security cover to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna, on 26.6.2008 reiterated on 14.7.2008.On 18.10.2009 he has also filed a First Information Report under Sections 384 and 427/34 of the Penal Code against a named accused. The ground mentioned in the counter affidavit is paucity of police personnel. There is no consideration of the security threat perception to the petitioner and which was the relevant consideration for taking an appropriate decision. His request for an arms licence has also been denied. Counsel for the State points out that the petitioner is an accused in three criminal cases under Section 307 of the Penal Code. The paucity of personnel can be a relevant consideration to decline security cover. It is the duty of the State in a Democracy to protect the life and liberty of a citizen. But that is a general duty. It shall not create in an individual a fundamental or legal right to demand individual security cover notwithstanding that the individual may be willing to pay for the same under the provisions of the Police Act and Police Manual. It shall 2 always be a subjective matter for the authorities to decide based upon their assessment of the threat perception of an individual whether additional security cover apart from the general obligation of the State to provide protection is required. The order refusing his request for security cover only deals with the paucity of police personnel. It may be a relevant consideration but cannot be the sole consideration. The primary question is of the subjective satisfaction of the authorities with regard to the threat perception of the petitioner. The deliberations dated 6.2.2009 and 28.10.2009 declining him protection on the ground of paucity of police personnel is therefor not sustainable as it refuses to take into consideration relevant materials. Any administrative decision which refuses to take into consideration relevant material for a decision undoubtedly suffers from the vice of arbitrariness. The deliberations dated 6.2.2009 and 28.10.2009 therefore cannot be said to have decided the issue of security cover to the petitioner in light of his perceived threat perception in a manner required by law. The respondents are directed to pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order with regard to the request of the petitioner for providing him security cover in view of his claimed perception of threat to his life. Let the same be done preferably within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt and/or presentation of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)