Judgment : 1. The petitioner in the present Writ Petition challenges the orders dated 23.4.2007 and 7.5.2007 issued by the first respondent. 2. The petitioner was involved in a criminal case and the was granted bail pending investigation. This order was later on cancelled and the matter was taken before the Supreme Court by the State. Before the matter went before the Supreme Court, the petitioner complained of certain ailment, which necessitated the petitioner being admitted to a Government Hospital. 3. Not satisfied with the treatment, the petitioner made an application for getting treatment in a Private Hospital for which he moved an application before this Court. In the meantime, the petitioner bail was cancelled and he was lodged in the Madurai Central Prison as a remand prisoner. When he moved this Court with an application to get treatment at a Private Hospital, this Court passed an order dated 8.2.2005 stating that the petitioner shall bear all expenses for his transport to Madurai as well for other incidental expenses including the provision for escort and security. 4. Because of the condition imposed by the Court, the respondent demanded a deposit and accordingly the petitioner was forced to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,610/- and it was kept in the account of the petitioner. The petitioner underwent treatment from 14.2.2005 to 21.2.2005 in a private hospital at Madurai. During the said period, the Armed Reserved Police Force from Tirunelveli were summoned to escort the petitioner. He was escorted by the said police from 16.2.2005 to 21.2.2005 and during that period, the petitioner was escorted by the Madurai City Police, Escort and finally the petitioner was enlarged on bail on 19.5.2005. 5. In the meantime, he was informed by the Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli that by a letter dated 11.3.2005 escorting charges for the petitioner for the days from 14.2.2005 to 15.2.2005 in the private hospital at madurai amounts to Rs. 3,513/- and sum was remitted to the Government account with a challen No. of 60 dated 25.8.2005. The balance amount of Rs.16,487/- was retained in his account. Thereafter, a sum of Rs. 4,123/-was remitted to the petitioner account on 27.8.2005 and Rs. 20,000/- on 30.2.2006. Thereby the first respondent collected a total deposit of rs. 40,610/-. 6. 3,513/- and sum was remitted to the Government account with a challen No. of 60 dated 25.8.2005. The balance amount of Rs.16,487/- was retained in his account. Thereafter, a sum of Rs. 4,123/-was remitted to the petitioner account on 27.8.2005 and Rs. 20,000/- on 30.2.2006. Thereby the first respondent collected a total deposit of rs. 40,610/-. 6. Subsequently when the petitioners bail was cancelled, he was again remanded to prison on 27.10.2005, As per the direction of the Supreme Court, the petitioner was sent to anther Private Hospital at Tirunelveli to be kept in the hospital from 28.3.2006 to 18.7.2006. 7. The order of the Supreme Court dated 27.3.2006 reads as follows :- “The petitioner who is an under-trial prisoner, is undergoing treatment in the prison hospital at palayamkottai in Tirunelveli. The petitioner contends that the medical treatment given to him is not sufficient as he is seriously ailing with a cardiac problem and he would like to have abetter treatment in an appropriate hospital by name Galaxy hospital at Tirunelveli. The authorities shall take urgent steps to shift the petitioner from the Praise on Hospital to Galaxy Hospital at the earliest and the entire expenses of the treatment in the Galaxy Hospital shall be met by the petitioner himself. The State would be at liberty to have surveillance over the petitioner where he is undergoing treatment in the Galaxy Hospital. The in-charge of the Cardiac Department of the Galaxy Hospital shall make available the report before 13th April, 2006.” 8. A reading of the order clearly shows that the Honourable Supreme Court only granted permission for the petitioner to be treated in a private hospital and the State can keep a surveillance on his. There is no where mention about the amount to be paid by way of charges for the escort duty or for the surveillance provided by the State. After the treatment the petitioner was discharged from the hospital. 9. There is no dispute over the expenditure incurred in paying the private hospital charges. But it is the present demand by the respondent demanding a sum of Rs.3,42,720/- to be paid by him towards the escort charges which is under challenge. Further the first respondent sent a reminder dated 23.4.2007. The first respondent also informed the Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City (2nd respondent) that already the prisoner has been asked to pay the amounts. 10. Further the first respondent sent a reminder dated 23.4.2007. The first respondent also informed the Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City (2nd respondent) that already the prisoner has been asked to pay the amounts. 10. The petitioner sent a legal notice through his counsel to the respondents stating that he was under no legal obligations to pay the amount as demanded by them in the name of escort duty. He also stated that the respondent forceably collected the amount of Rs.40,610/- from him. Since the petitioner was apprehensive that coercive steps may be taken to recover the amount, he has filed the present Writ Petition to challenge the demand notices issued by the respondents. 11. Heard the arguments Mr. K. Doraisami, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Sasikumar, the learned Government Advocate for the respondents and have perused the records. 12. A counter affidavit dated Nil, 207 has been filed by the first respondent. The first respondent only relies upon the order passed by this Court Crl. O.P.(MD) No. 1242 of 2005 dated 08.02.2005 wherein this Court by an interim-order stated that the petitioner shall bear the expenses fro his transport to Madurai as well as other incidental expenses including the provision of escort and security. 13. In the present case, this Court is not concerned with that order as the entire complex of the case got changed after the matter went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court permitted the petitioner to be treated at a private hospital at has own expenses. There was no dispute about the bill amounts to be settled to the private hospital. The only issue before this Court is an unusual request made by the respondent to demand for payment towards providing escort duty to maintain an under trial prisoner whether inside or outside the prison for any reason including while undergoing medical treatment. 14. It is the duty of the State to protect the prisoner either inside or outside the prison or while under medical care outside. The petitioner may make himself scarce, when he is taken out of the prison. The obligation of rendering such duty is only by the State and the prisoner has no role to play in such matters. The functioning of the state and also the activities of State namely the maintaining the Police is a Sovereign function of the State. The petitioner may make himself scarce, when he is taken out of the prison. The obligation of rendering such duty is only by the State and the prisoner has no role to play in such matters. The functioning of the state and also the activities of State namely the maintaining the Police is a Sovereign function of the State. In the discharge a sovereign function, they cannot collect any fee for rendering such services, namely, guarding of the prisoners of the State. In fact it is improper for the State should demand any amount for doing escort duty, as they were not escorting any private individual but they were protecting a person who is faced with grave charges of felony. In those cases the state is bound to provide such security or escort as the gravity of the situation may warrant and the scale which such security cover can be made. The accused has no say in such matters. 15. In the present case, a perusal of the Supreme Courts order clearly shows that the Supreme Court only directed surveillance on the petitioner which demand obviously must have come from State itself. The Supreme Court only directed the prisoners to be treated in a private hospital and that may require the sanction of a Court order. But there is no mention about the amount to be paid by the prisoner for being provided a security cover. In fact, such a demand is not constitutionally permissible and the petitioner is right in contending that he has no obligation to pay the amount demanded by the respondent. 16. In fact the District Police Act under Section 13 provides situation under which cost to be recovered from individuals. The said provision reads as follows:- ““ 13. In fact, such a demand is not constitutionally permissible and the petitioner is right in contending that he has no obligation to pay the amount demanded by the respondent. 16. In fact the District Police Act under Section 13 provides situation under which cost to be recovered from individuals. The said provision reads as follows:- ““ 13. Additional Police Officer employed at cost of individuals:- It shall be lawful for the State Government, if they shall think fit, on the application of any person showing the necessity thereof, to appoint any additional number of Police Officers to keep the peace at any place within the General or Deputy Inspector - General or Deputy Inspector-General or District Superintendent and for such time as they shall think fit provided always that it shall be lawful for the person on whose application such appointment shall have been made, on giving one months notice in writing to the Director-General or the Inspector-General or Deputy Inspector-General or District Superintendent, to require that the officers so appointed shall be discontinued such person shall be relieved from the charge of such additional force from the expiration of such notice. 17. As per the above provision if only a citizen wants the Police cover the state by the said enactment has made it a cost effective service. 18. The Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with a matter relating to a demand made by a sick mill demanding police protection so that the unattended machineries and other valuables inside the factory premises may not be stolen. In that context, certain a amounts were sought to be recovered from the sick mill as it had agreed to pay the same. The Supreme Court judgment reported in Howrah Mills Ltd & Another v. Md. Shamin & Others (2006) 5 SCC page 539 dealt with a demand of to his nature. While dealing with the case of police protection, the Supreme Court had observed in Paras 10 and 13 and it may be usefully extracted below:- “ 10…. Even otherwise, in a situation like the present, it is the duty of the police of the State to give necessary protection to the struggling industry to tide over the crises and protect its property form interference by lawless elements and unauthorised persons. Even otherwise, in a situation like the present, it is the duty of the police of the State to give necessary protection to the struggling industry to tide over the crises and protect its property form interference by lawless elements and unauthorised persons. Going by the Police Regulations Bengal, 1943, Regulations 666 and 669, it may even be possible to say that the protection in such circumstances should be afforded even without insisting on payment by the private party seeking protection. 13. Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the State has categorically submitted before us that the State would perform its duties in the matter of maintenance of law and order and it shall provide Protection to the property of the first appellant Company in discharge of the statutory duties of the State and the police. In this context, the authorities may consider whether it is necessary to engage a large force of policemen at this stage and consider posting only such number of personnel as may be found necessary for the protection of the property. That would enable a reduction in the cost of protection to be paid by the appellants and the State would be free to reduce the charges payable by the appellants for protection of the properties. 19. It is rather unfortunate that the respondents without any authority of law made a demand from the remand prisoner amounts to be paid for the security cover provided which the petitioner himself never wanted. The legal justification for making such a demand on the petitioner is in either borne out by the Constitution nor in any law relating to the police establishment in this country. May be these are days when most of the governmental activities are being out sourced and even in highways and Bridges toll plazas have sprung up fleshing the citizenry. 20. When the amounts demanded by the respondents, had the approval of the State is not revealed by the Respondents and no mention is made in the counter affidavit about the same. Therefore a copy of this judgment is directed to be marked to the Secretary, Home Department of the State of Tamil Nadu to make suitable directions to their submissions. 21. Therefore a copy of this judgment is directed to be marked to the Secretary, Home Department of the State of Tamil Nadu to make suitable directions to their submissions. 21. Under the circumstances, the Writ Petition will stand allowed and the impugned order will stand quashed and the respondents directed to return the amount of Rs.40,610 collected from the petitioner within a period of four weeks collected from the petitioner within a period of four weeks form the date of receipt of a copy of this order and report compliance of this Court. The Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.