IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.1030 of 2007 KALI PRASAD PANDEY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 6 03.09.2008 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved by annexure 15 which is communication dated 30.7.2007 by Surgeant Major, Police Centre, Gopalganj, stating that security body guard can be deputed only on due payment of its cost. The communication further noted that there is shortage of adequate armed guards. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that earlier he represented Gopalganj district in Legislative Assembly and Lok Sabha and for the present he is General Secretary of Lok Jan Shakti Party and has to travel extensively for spreading the objectives of the party. He further submitted that petitioner had filed a writ petition before this court which had been permitted to be withdrawn with direction to the petitioner to move before the DGP for grant of security. Thereafter, vide memo no.1836 dated 20.9.2001 he was provided with one armed guard security which was withdrawn in 2002. On the petitioner’s representation, the S.P., Gopalganj informed the D.I.G. (Administration), Bihar that the District Security Committee in its meeting dated 25.4.2006 decided to provide armed guard as before to the petitioner, while being in Gopalganj. It is submitted by the State counsel that as per minutes of subsequent meeting dated 12.7.2007 the Committee did not find it expedient to provide any further armed guard to the petitioner. He - 2 - further submits that the petitioner has criminal antecedent and there is acute shortage of police personnel in Gopalganj, a border district of the State. In the facts and circumstances of the case, if the petitioner represents before the District Security Committee, Gopalganj, it would examine the claim of the petitioner and pass a speaking order within two months from the date of representation. Shashi. (S.P.Singh,J).