ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Iqbal Asif Niazi, learned AC to GP-5 for the State.

2. In this writ application, the petitioner is seeking the following reliefs: –

“(i) For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashment of Memo no. 2062 dated 28.07.2022 issued by office of respondent no. 6 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been informed that respondent no. 3 who is chariman of Special Security Committee, Bihar has turned down the application of the petitioner for providing Body guard.

(ii) For a direction upon respondent no.3 to consider the recommendations of respondents no. 9, 8, 7, 6 and 5 for making available bodyguard to the petitioner considering threat perception to the life and liberty of the petitioner on payment basis.

(iii) For holding that in the absence of personal security the life and property of the petitioner who is an up and coming businessman in Begusarai running factories at Barauni Industrial Estate is in imminent danger from criminals round the clock.

(iv) For holding that the state is bound to protect the life and liberty of ever human being whether a citizen or otherwise and it can not permit any body to threatened another person.

(v) For holding that the rejection of the request for providing bodyguard to the petitioner on payment basis is denial of right to life and property which is a fundamental right u/a 21 of constitution of India and is also in the teeth of Article 14 of the Constitution.

(vi) For any other relief/ reliefs, the petitioner may be found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

3. It is the case of the petitioner that his request to provide a security guard on payment was examined by the District Special Branch Officer, Begusarai.

4. The said Officer reiterated vide memo no. 59 of 2022 dated 24.04.2022 that considering the threat perception to the life and property of the petitioner, he may be provided a security guard on payment of cost. The grievance of the petitioner is that he had conveyed his threat to all the concerned officials and in this regard even the President of the Refinery had written a letter to respondent no. 6 vide Annexure ‘6’ to the writ application but surprisingly the recommendation made in favour of the petitioner vide Annexure ‘6’ was not looked into and the petitioner has been communicated vide memo no.2062 dated 28.07.2022 Annexure ‘7’ to the writ application, which is being reproduced hereunder: –

^^lsok esa
Jh pUnznhi dqekj]
firk&Loñ fl;kjke flag]
lkñ&yk[kks okMZ uañ&14]
iksñ&yk[kks Fkkuk&yk[kks vksñihñ]
ftyk&csxwljkA
izlax%& iqfyl mi&egkfujh{kd ¼lqj{kk½] fcgkj] iVuk dk;kZy; dk i=kkad- foñlqñlñdksñ@ 2022@875 fnukad&30-06-2022
fo"k;%& vaxj{kd izfrfu;qDr ugha djus ds lacaèk esaA
mi;ZqDr izlaxkèkhu fo"k; ds lacaèk esa lwfpr djuk gS fd x`g foHkkx dk ladYi lañ&3663 fnukad 05-02-2017 ds vuq:i fnukad&30-06-2022 dks vij iqfyl egkfuns'kd ¼lqj{kk½≶&vè;{k fo'ks"k lqj{kk lfefr egksn; fcgkj dh vè;{krk esa gqbZ cSBd esa fy, x;s fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj vkidks vaxj{kd miyCèk ugha djkus dk vkns'k izkIr gqvk gSA
vr% lknj lwpukFkZ izsf"krA
ifjpkjh izoj]
iqfyl dsUnz] csxwljk;A**

5. It is, thus, the case of the petitioner that the Special Security Committee headed by the Additional Director General (Security) has rejected the request of the petitioner to provide a security guard without looking into the materials available on the record and the order has been passed in a mechanical manner without application of judicious mind.

6. Mr. Iqbal Asif Niazi, learned AC to GP-5 for the State has though opposed this writ application but he is unable to defend Annexure ‘7’ to the writ application as the fact is that Annexure ‘7’ does not contain any reason and nothing may be deciphered from the said communication.

7. To this Court, it appears that Special Security Committee has failed to appreciate that in India the role of government is that of the parent of the citizens and principle of parens patriae applies when it comes to protect and secure the l