Bhabakrishna Barman vs. The State Of Assam And 3 Ors

Held

The Court held that the State Police authority and the State Security Review Committee must consider the petitioner's prayer for the allotment of a PSO. The Court directed that if the petitioner files a representation for the allotment of a PSO, it shall be duly accepted and considered by the relevant authorities. This consideration must follow the SOP for issuing PSOs and examine the petitioner's matter in accordance with the law and prevailing Rules. The Court did not definitively rule on whether the petitioner had an absolute right to a PSO on payment, but rather on the procedural requirement for the authorities to consider his application. The previous writ petition was disposed of as premature, and this petition was disposed of with the aforementioned directions.

Facts

The petitioner, Bhabakrishana Barman, a businessman and politician, was provided with a Personal Security Officer (PSO) on a payment basis of Rs. 38,000/- per month plus GST. This arrangement was set to expire on April 7, 2022. Previously, the petitioner had filed a writ petition (WP(C) No. 317/2022) challenging the potential withdrawal of the PSO. The Court, in its order dated March 3, 2022, deemed the earlier petition premature as the petitioner had paid for the PSO until April 7, 2022, and directed him to reapply after that date. The petitioner subsequently filed a fresh application on April 3, 2022, requesting that his PSO not be withdrawn, highlighting that the State earned revenue from this service.

Key Issues

1. Whether the State authorities are obligated to continue providing a Personal Security Officer (PSO) on a payment basis to the petitioner, irrespective of the State's policy on withdrawing PSOs, based on the Supreme Court's decision in State of West Bengal Vs. Biswanath Mitra? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that the Supreme Court in Biswanath Mitra clarified that individuals can claim police protection based on their threat perception and be charged for it, implying an entitlement to a PSO on payment. He argued that the revenue generated by the State from this service should also be a consideration. Revenue's argument: The State argued that the Supreme Court's direction in Biswanath Mitra was based on a concession by the State of West Bengal and is not applicable to the State of Assam, which has its own Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for issuing PSOs.