Disposed

Justice Someshwar Nath Pathak v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC24 Jun 2013CWJC/4197/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired judge sought a permanent security guard for his village home. The single-judge bench held that while personal security was provided, a permanent house guard could not be mandated by rule. The court directed the administration to fine-tune existing security arrangements if inadequacies existed.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed; direction to district administration of Patna and Aurangabad to fine-tune existing security arrangements if inadequacies exist.

Justice Someshwar Nath Pathak Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4197 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Justice Someshwar Nath Pathak(Retd.) S/O Late Badri Nath Pathak Resident Of Mohalla Karma Road, Aurangabad, P.S. Aurangabad (Town) Distt. Aurangabad, Bihar. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad, (Bihar). 3. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna. 4. The D.G.P., Bihar, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Digvijay Kumar Ojha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ray Shivaji Nath, AAG 3 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL ORDER

¶2

6 24-06-2013 Petitioner is a retired Judge of the Patna High Court. He has filed the present writ application for a direction upon the State to provide him adequate security at his village home in Aurangabad, which is supposed to be a naxal affected district. Petitioner has expressed certain apprehension with regard to security to his family and to himself justifying moving this High Court for such a direction.

¶3

In the various counter affidavits filed on behalf of the State, the State authorities have taken stand that the petitioner has been provided a personal security and the district administration both at Patna as well as at Aurangabad do provide him the necessary backup or cover whenever he proceeds to his village

¶4

Patna High Court CWJC No.4197 of 2011 (6) dt.24-06-2013

¶5

2/3

¶6

home but making permanent arrangement is not possible beyond the rule book.

¶7

There is a difference of opinion in the stand of the petitioner as well as the State with regard to the place where the petitioner generally resides. According to the petitioner, he does move between Patna and Aurangabad but generally stays at Aurangabad but the report obtained in this regard indicates that petitioner mostly resides at Patna and once in a while makes a visit to Aurangabad. The personal details provided in the report are not required to be taken note of but it is evident that one branch of the family of the petitioner lives in Aurangabad as petitioner himself is a bachelor.

¶8

Since personal security has already been provided by the State, that part of the issue is allowed to rest. So far as permanent arrangement for providing security or a house guard at his village home is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner failed to produce any rule by which such arrangement can be provided to holder of an office, after demitting office. There is difficulty in issuing mandamus to the State across the board.

¶9

Counsel for the State, however, takes a stand that the Government has taken a policy decision to provide security on payment. If the petitioner is so interested, he may consider that

¶10

Patna High Court CWJC No.4197 of 2011 (6) dt.24-06-2013

¶11

3/3

¶12

option but providing security to the extent and satisfaction of the petitioner is not possible in the given facts and circumstances.

¶13

Writ application is disposed of with observation as above with a clear direction upon the district administration of Patna and Aurangabad that if there are certain inadequacies in the arrangement so made, they should be spruced up and fine- tuned.

¶14

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)

¶15

Justice Someshwar Nath Pathak v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Justice Someshwar Nath Pathak v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parth Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Gopal Giri and Anr. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Md.Alimuddin,Advocate Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Fanindara Bhushan Chaudhary Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Ram Babu Ram @ Ram Babu Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.