Dismissed¶28

Mirnal Rai v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC22 Jun 2025WPC/3081/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Police protection withdrawn since 28.02.2025 without order or notice; ex-chairperson Municipal Council Kirandul (Dantewada); Articles 14, 21 and 226 invoked; held grant of security is an executive function based on threat assessment, not a right enforceable by writ; restoration of protection refused; writ petition dismissed by Chhattisgarh High Court (Bilaspur).

What did the court decide?

A writ petition under Article 226 is not a mechanism to claim security; while Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights and other purposes, the decision to grant security is an executive function based on threat assessment, not a right that can be enforced through a writ. ¶28

Mirnal Rai Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

2025:CGHC:26697

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 3081 of 2025

¶6

1 - Mirnal Rai S/o Shri Kali Das Aged About 53 Years R/o Ring Road No. 04, Kirandul, District South Bastar Dantewada Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s)

¶7

versus

¶8

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director General Of Police Police Head Quarter, Nawa Raipur, Disrict Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶9

3 - Inspector General Of Police Intelligence Bureau, Police Head Quarter, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶10

4 - Inspector General Of Police Bastar Police Range, Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh

¶11

5 - Collector, District South Bastar Dantewada Chhattisgarh

¶12

6 - Superintendent Of Police Dantewada, District South Bastar Dantewada Chhattisgarh

¶13

7 - Station House Officer Police Station Kirandul, District South Bastar Dantewada Chhattisgarh ----Respondents

¶14

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Kishore Narayan, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Abhishek Gupta, P.L.

¶15

Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board

¶16

23/06/2025

¶17

1. By way of present Petition, learned counsel for the Petitioner prays for the following relief(s):-

¶18

¶19

10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for record particularly the recent threat perception report if any with respect to withdrawal of security to the petitioner.

¶20

10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the action of the respondent in withdrawing the police protection to the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal, in the interest of justice.

¶21

10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an order directing the respondents to restore the police protection to the petitioner forthwith.

¶22

10.4 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other order considering the special facts and circumstances of this case.

¶23

2. The petitioner was an elected chair person of Municipal Council Kirandul. He was given police Protection since February 2020. Grievance of the petitioner is that his security has been unilaterally withdrawn without any order or notice in an arbitrary, unreasonable manner in violation of his right under article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The security to the petitioner was withdrawn since 28.02.2025. The police protection of the petitioner was withdrawn without any order, without any prior notice, communication or opportunity of petitioner and no updated threat perception report was shared or intimated to the petitioner. Therefore, he prays for a direction to the respondent-authorities to restore the police protection to the petitioner forthwith.

¶24

3. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶25

4. I have learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶26

5. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for petitioner and considering the facts and circumstance of the case, this Court is of the opinion that while a writ petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution is filed, it is not a mechanism to claim security, Article 226 empowers high Courts to issue writs for the

¶27

¶28

enforcement of fundamental rights and for other purposes, but the decision to grant security is an executive function based on threat assessment, not a right that can be enforced through a writ, therefore the relief sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition cannot be granted. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

( Arvind Kumar Verma )

¶31

Judge

¶32

Jyoti

Mirnal Rai v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mirnal Rai v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nikahat Parveen Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Kesharwani Rice Mill Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Kesharwani Rice Mill Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Ravindra Yadu Vs Chhattisgarh Woman Commission

Dankeshwar Netam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Lokeshwar Das Manikpuri Vs State of Chhattisgarh