IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.376 of 2008 RATAN SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 6 19.8.2008 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application is directed against the letter dated 21.3.2008 issued by the District Commandent , Home Guard, respondent no.4 addressed to the petitioner, by which the facility of deployment of Home Guard 1 – 9 Armed Home Guards provided to him was withdrawn. 3. The first reason mentions that the term of the security guards comes to an end in January,2008 and as such the same cannot be extended without prior approval of the District Magistrate. The second reason assigned was that dues of the month of November,2008 was not paid. 4. The learned counsel for the State has filed counter affidavit annexing a copy of proceeding of meeting dated 20.3.2008 of District Security Committee, comprising of the D.M., Begusarai. S.P., Begusarai and Dy.S.P. of Special Branch, Munger. The case of the petitioner has been considered by Item no.4. The following grounds mentioned herein below have been assigned for non-continuation of security facility to the petitioner:- (i) Deployment of Armed Home Guards in the strength of 1 – 9 over such a long period for any individual does not seem appropriate. Further more as per Government circular, the guards deployed with a person has to be changed and replaced periodically and such 2 change does not become feasible in case of long deputation, in such big strength. (ii) Further more the dues of the deployment, for the period November, 2007 to January,2008 has not been paid. (iii) The Officer –in – Charge, Barh, vide his letter dated 16.3.2008 informed that he has not received any complaint regarding any security threat to the petitioner from any antisocial elements. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reasons assigned for non-continuation of security guard are nonest in the eye of law. He submits that security guard has been assigned to him since the year 2001 on payment of cost basis. He submits that he has been regularly paying the necessary cost of such deployment of security guards and without default. Further more as soon as he came to learn that payment of last three months is due, he immediately paid the aforesaid dues totalling to Rs.1,04,070/- vide Receipt No.0491787 issued by the District Commandant , Home Guards, Begusarai contained in Annexure-3 to the supplementary affidavit. The petitioner submits that he has affinity with the political party and is a member of District Board. His wife who has been elected a Member of District Board is, in fact, Chairman of the District Board, Begusarai. He continuously faces security threat to his life and property. Finally he submits that he has also filed representation in this respect, contained in Annexure-2 dated 23.3.2008, addressed to the District Magistrate, Begusarai. He finally submits that Security Guards provided to him in the strength of 1 – 9 may be reduced to 1 – 4 or 1 – 5, if deployment in strength 3 of 1 - 9 is not feasible. 6. This Court finds that most of the grounds for non-renewal of the security guard are not tenable. A person who has regularly paid the cost of security guards, since last seven years without default, cannot be faulted if he had failed to pay the cost of last three months, which too has been cleared vide Annexure-3. So far as the deployment of Home Guards security in such a huge strength of 1 – 9 is concerned, the petitioner himself has limited his prayer to deployment of such security force in the strength of 1 – 4 or 1 – 5. He submits that it is for the District Administration itself to change the guards periodically. The petitioner in this respect is helpless and cannot be faulted with. 7. This takes me to the last reason assigned as mentioned in ground (iii) mentioned in para 4, that the District Security Committee has not received any report from Police Station concerned that petitioner has any threat perception to the life and property. 8. The case of petitioner, is that he has reasonable threat to his life and property on account of professional and political rivalaries. Besides this he and his wife both are Members of the District Board, the latter being its Chairman also. Keeping in view the security threat, he has been provided with security guard all these years. It also appears that the petitioner has filed representations to the District Magistrate stating therein that he has perpetual threat to his life and property, and willing to pay the cost 4 of deployment of guards. 9. In the circumstances the order dated 21.3.2008 as contained in issued by District Commandant , Home Guard withdrawing the security guard of the petitioner is not sustainable and the same is quashed. In view of facts noticed above, this Court grants liberty to petitioner to file a representation detailing the grounds for grant of security in reduced strength, as opted and noticed above. On receipt of such representation, the same will be placed before the District Security Committee which will dispose of the same within two months from the date of its receipt, in accordance with law and also in the light of observation made by this Court. 10. In the result, this application is allowed to the extent mentioned above. Anilksinha (Samarendra Pratap Singh,J.)