- (1.) The respondent approached the High Court of Calcutta 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 19-1-2012[Biswanath Mitra v. State of W.B., MAT No. 1815 of 2011, order dated 19-1-2012 (Cal)]. 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 trial court's order directing such security should be provided to the appellant without charging any cost."
(2.) A perusal of the aforesaid order reveals that liberty was granted to the police authorities to determine the threat perception to the petitioner periodically.
(3.) Even though in continuation of the order dated 19-1-2012[Biswanath Mitra v. State of W.B., MAT No. 1815 of 2011, order dated 19-1-2012 (Cal), 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 17-6-2013[Biswanath Mitra v. State of W.B., 2013 SCC OnLine Cal 10532. A learned Single Judge of the High Court disposed of the aforementioned writ petition by observing as under: (Biswanath Mitra case, Biswanath Mitra v. State of W.B., 2013 SCC OnLine Cal 10532, SCC Online Cal) "... If a person requires police protection by way of an 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 Respondent 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, Respondent 4 should consider the same in accordance with law and do the needful.";