Supreme Court - Daily Orders
The State Of W.B vs Biswanath Mitra on 16 March, 2015
Bench: Jagdish Singh Khehar, S.A. Bobde
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2986 OF 2015
(Arising from SLP(C) No.13275/2014)
State of West Bengal and others ..Appellants
versus
Biswanath Mitra ..Respondent
O R D E R
The respondent approached the High Court at Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the 'High Court') by filing MAT No. 1815 of 2011 and CAN No.10924 of 2011 seeking, that there was a threat perception to his life and he be provided police security. The aforesaid matter came to be disposed of by a common order dated 19.01.2012. The operative part of the above order is being extracted hereunder:
“We find that the order so passed by the learned Trial Court does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality. Hence we affirm excepting that it will be an endeavour on the part of the police authorities to find out whether it is necessary to allot such security in favour of the appellant/writ petitioner periodically. We directed to deploy such security to the appellant without payment of cost since we feel that it is the right of a citizen to be protected by the State in respect of his rights under the Constitution. Hence, we modify the part of the Signature Not Verified trial Court's order directing such security should Digitally signed by be provided to the appellant without charging any Parveen Kumar Chawla Date: 2015.03.18 16:16:08 IST cost.” Reason:
A perusal of the aforesaid order reveals, that liberty was granted to the police authorities to determine the threat 2 perception to the petitioner periodically.
Even though, in continuation of the order dated 19.1.2012, police protection was actually provided to the respondent, yet by an order dated 8.5.2013, he was required to bear expenses for the same. The above order was assailed by the respondent by filing Writ Petition No. 16765 of 2013. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed on 17.06.2013. A learned Single Judge of the High Court disposed of the afore-mentioned writ petition by observing as under:
“If a person requires police protection by way of as armed guard, due payment therefor has to be made. The order impugned cannot be faulted on such ground. However, to the extent the grievance of the petitioner is that the armed guard is restricted to the district and will not be effective in providing adequate security to the petitioner, it will be open to the petitioner to approach the respondent no.4 for permission to be accorded for the armed guard to remain with the petitioner as long as the petitioner moves within the State. Upon such application being made, the respondent no.4 should consider the same in accordance with law and do the needful.” The order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court (dated 17.6.2013) was assailed before a Division Bench of the High Court by preferring MAT No. 2394 of 2013. The Division Bench accepted the appeal preferred by the respondent. The order passed by the Superintendent of Police dated 8.5.2013 was modified, and a direction was issued to respondent nos. 2,3, and 5 (petitioner nos.2, 3 and 5 herein) to deploy security guard(s), in order to protect the life of the petitioner, without demanding any costs/charges therefor. 3
The impugned order passed by the High Court on 29.07.2013 is subject matter of challenge before this Court through the instant special leave petition.
Leave granted.
During the course of hearing, it was the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the State of West Bengal, that security can be provided free of cost only to such an individual who has an actual threat to his life, and that, since there was no threat against the life of the respondent, he could not be provided police protection free of cost. Rather than accepting the contention advanced on behalf of the State Government, on the basis of the submission advanced during the course of hearing, this Court by a motion bench order dated 5.1.2015, directed the State Government to re-evaluate the threat perception of the respondent, and to submit a report to this Court. In compliance with the aforesaid direction, the Superintendent of Police, North 24-Parganas, Barasat, West Bengal submitted a report to this Court dated 4.2.2015. We have perused the same. A perusal of the above report reveals, that the appellant was afforded an opportunity of hearing, and thereupon, his assertions were verified. It was eventually concluded, that there was no threat perception to the life and liberty of the respondent.
A copy of the aforesaid report dated 4.2.2015 was furnished to the learned counsel for the respondent on 9.2.2015. During the course of hearing today, learned counsel for the 4 respondent, invited the attention of this Court, to various complaints made by the respondent, depicting threat to his life and liberty.
We have given a thoughtful consideration to the matter in hand. It is not possible for us to accept the aforesaid complaints on their face value, nor does this Court have the expertise to draw a conclusion, whether or not, there is actually a threat to the life and liberty of the respondent. The only recourse open to us to determine the threat perception to the life and liberty of the respondent was, to call for a report from the concerned Superintendent of Police. The aforesaid procedure was adopted and the report dated 4.2.2015 has been received, which depicts no threat perception insofar as the respondent is concerned. We find no justification for not accepting the same.
Despite the conclusions drawn in the report dated 4.2.2015, learned counsel for the appellants states, that the State Government would be ready and willing to provide police protection to the respondent. However, the same shall be at his own cost.
Based on the factual position noticed above, we are satisfied in disposed of the present appeal, with the following directions:
I) It shall be open to the respondent, to furnish further details to the police authorities insofar as the threat perception to his life is concerned. This liberty shall be 5 available to the respondent, as and when he perceives of such threat. When such a representation is made by the respondent to the police authorities, the same shall be examined and a decision shall be taken thereon within one week of the receipt of such representation. In case, it is concluded that there is a threat to the life and liberty of the respondent, he shall be provided free protection.
II) Irrespective of what has been directed by us hereinabove, and irrespective of the conclusions drawn by the police department, it shall be open to the respondent to claim police protection based on his own threat perception. In case, he chooses to do so, the police authorities shall provide police protection to the respondent, and charge him for the same.
The instant appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
…............................J.
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR]
NEW DELHI; …............................J.
MARCH 16, 2015. [S.A. BOBDE]
6
ITEM NO.58 COURT NO.4 SECTION XVI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 13275/2014
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 29/07/2013 in FMA No. 2394/2013 passed by the High Court Of Calcutta) THE STATE OF W.B & ORS Petitioner(s) VERSUS BISWANATH MITRA Respondent(s) (with interim relief and office report) Date : 16/03/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE For Petitioner(s) Mr. Kalyan Kr. Bandopadhyay, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Saakaar Sardana, Adv.
for Mr. Anip Sachthey,AOR(NP) For Respondent(s) Mr. Pijush K. Roy, Adv.
for Mr. Rajan K. Chourasia,AOR(NP) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
(Parveen Kr. Chawla) (Renu Diwan)
Court Master Court Master
[signed order is placed on the file]