Judgment 1. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner prays for a direction to the respondent authorities to provide security guards with carbine alongwith section of security guards to be deployed at his residence for protection of his life and property. 2. The petitioner seeks the aforesaid reliefs, as he apprehends imminent threat to his life and property at the hands of anti-social elements having connection with high ups and politicians, whose misdeeds were exposed in public by him. It would be necessary to notice the facts of the case in brief. 3. The petitioner prior to the year 2002, was a staff reporter of Delhi Newspaper Hindustan, Patna Edition, in course of his career as a journalist he made some sensational revelations regarding the misdeeds of some high ups and political bigwigs. The petitioner began to receive continuous threats from anti-social elements who was affected by such newspaper report. 4. The authorities on realizing that threat perception to petitioner is imminent and real, the Additional Secretary (Home) Police, Bihar and the D.G.P. recommended to provide adequate security arrangement for him. Similarly the D.I.G., Central Zone, Patna also accepted the factum of threat and directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna, to provide him proper security. However, no security was provided to the petitioner on the ground of paucity of such force. The petitioner moved this court being Cr.W.J.C. No. 766 of 1994 and 291 of 1998 for a direction for providing two security guards with sten gun/carbine. This court by order dated 30.7.1998 passed in Cr.W.J.C. No. 291 of 1998, directed the respondents to provide security guards, if not already provided (Annexure-1). This court noticed the aforesaid facts stated in order dated 30.7.1998 contained in Annexure-1. 5. Pursuant to the direction of this court, the petitioner was provided two security guards vide memo no. 22.9.1998 of the Superintendent of Police, Jehanabad (Annexure-2). 6. The President of India vide warrant of appointment dated 21.3.2002, appointed the petitioner, a Member of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Annexure-3). The petitioner assumed charge of his office at New Delhi w.e.f. 21.3.2002. The petitioner was provided due security at New Delhi and also on his visits to the State of Bihar. One of the purposes of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes was to promote economic and educational interest of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes. The petitioner assumed charge of his office at New Delhi w.e.f. 21.3.2002. The petitioner was provided due security at New Delhi and also on his visits to the State of Bihar. One of the purposes of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes was to promote economic and educational interest of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes. The petitioner in course of discharge of his duty, took serious and stern action against antisocial elements in the State of Bihar. The petitioner found that one Dinesh Choudhary, M.L.A., belonging to a particular political party fought Vidhan Sabha election 2000, from Fatuha Constituency, on the basis of fake caste certificate. The petitioner highlighted such fraudulent act. The charge of the petitioner was correct and the Apex Court cancelled the election of Dinesh Choudhary. A copy of the newspaper report in this respect has been annexed as Annexures-5, 5/1 and 6 to the writ petition. 7. Similarly the petitioner also highlighted the involvement of a State Minister in the massacres of 6 Dalit persons in village Bhadura, P.S. Masaurhi, District- Patna on 7.5.2002. At the initiative of the petitioner, the National Commission for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes recommended for dismissal and arrest of said State Minister. A clipping of the newspaper is made Annexures-7 and 7/1 to the writ petition. 8. On expiration of his term as Member of aforesaid Commission, the petitioner shifted from New Delhi to Patna on 16.3.2007, and is residing therein with his family. His children are studying in a local school in Patna itself. The return of the petitioner to Patna has been noticed by anti-social elements, some of which are very highly connected. 9. The petitioner in paragraph 16 has stated that he met the D.G.P., Bihar. Home Secretary, Bihar and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna and disclosed them every details regarding the threat perception. The petitioner also filed a representation on 15.4.2007 and 16.4.2007 to respondents 2 and 3, respectively as contained in Annexures-8 and 8/1 for providing two security guards with carbine. 10. The grievance of the petitioner is that though Patna District Security Committee did not dispute the ominous threat to the life, it shifted the onus to District Administration, Gaya. The petitioner also filed a representation on 15.4.2007 and 16.4.2007 to respondents 2 and 3, respectively as contained in Annexures-8 and 8/1 for providing two security guards with carbine. 10. The grievance of the petitioner is that though Patna District Security Committee did not dispute the ominous threat to the life, it shifted the onus to District Administration, Gaya. It would appear from paragraphs 8 and 9 of the counter affidavit and Annexure-A, a letter, dated 1.3.2008 addressed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna to Superintendent of Police, Gaya that the security is not being provided for two reasons. First reason is that the Home district of petitioner is Gaya and that there is paucity of adequate se­curity guards. 11. The District Security Committee of Gaya on the other hand in its affidavit has in fact countered the stand of District Security Committee of Patna. The Dy. S.P., Bajirganj, Gaya Camp in his affidavit stated that the petitioner permanently resides at Patna and seldom visits Gaya district and Fatehpur block. He stated that petitioner has not been seen in Gaya district after he unsuccessfully fought assembly election from Fatehpur Constituency in 1995 and 2000. The Gaya Police also stated that S.H.O., Fatehpur after due enquiry has opined that there is no threat or danger to the life of the petitioner in the aforesaid area. As such, District Security Committee, Gaya declined to grant security to the petitioner at its end. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in backdrop of circumstances mentioned aforesaid, the threat perception to the life of petitioner cannot be localized and cannot be inferred from a report of S.H.O., of a particular Police Station. He also submits that such report of a S.H.O. of Police Station which has not been annexed or brought on record cannot be used or relied upon. In this respect, he relied upon a following passage referred to in a book titled New Miscellany At-Law by Rt. Hon. Sir Robert Megary, former Chancery Judge & Vice-Chancellor of Supreme Court of U.S.A. which is quoted hereinbelow: "A hearing is not a hearing in the American sense if faceless informers or confidential information may be used to deprive of a man of his liberty." The aforesaid passage is an extract from judgment in case of Jay V/s. Boyd, 351 U.S. 345. 13 Learned counsel for the State submits that the District Security Committee of Patna has referred the case of the petitioner to the District Security Committee, Gaya as the same is his home district and also because of paucity of police force in Patna district. He submits that Gaya District Security Committee on report of S.H.O., Fatehpur, and also taking into account that the petitioner has not been seen in Gaya since the year 2000, rightly came to a decision that no security could be provided to him at that area. 14. The following question falls for consideration of this court: (a) which of the two districts would be liable to. provide security, if any to the petitioner, (b) whether threat perception of petitioner can be localized or can be implied from a report of a local SHO of a Block, and whether such report which has not been brought on record, can be relied upon, (c) Whether petitioner has reasonable apprehension of threat to his life and is entitled to security for safeguard of his life and liberty as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 15. Refer issue (a).Which of two districts between Gaya and Patna would be liable to provide security, if any, to the petitioner. According to Patna, District Security Committee, Gaya district would be liable to consider the application of petitioner for grant of security. The other ground of Patna District Security Committee is of inadequacy of sufficient police guards. On the other hand, the stand of Security Committee of Gaya district is that petitioner resides at Patna and has not been seen in Gaya district for last eight years since his defeat in assembly election from Fatehpur assembly constituency in the year 2000. It is further its case that SHO, Fatehpur Block in its aforesaid report has opined that petitioner does not have any security threat in Gaya district. Furthermore Gaya district is badly affected by Naxal activities and it requires adequate force to meet its challenge. 16. Generally security to a person is provided either by his home district or the district where his activities are centered. 17. Furthermore Gaya district is badly affected by Naxal activities and it requires adequate force to meet its challenge. 16. Generally security to a person is provided either by his home district or the district where his activities are centered. 17. The district administration of home district cannot be responsible or nor would it be an appropriate authority for considering a plea of grant of security of a person who does not generally reside in that district and does not even visit the same over a number of years. In such circumstances, the address of home district is only academic and matter of record. In case a person frequents and also resides at his home district and also resides at the same time in some other district where his activities are also centered, then in such circumstances, the district security committee of home district will be appropriate authority for considering his application for grant of security. I have come to the aforesaid view as most of the social and political activists have their field of activities both in their native district as well as in capital town. In case, the aforesaid view is not adopted, the capital town would be alone flooded with numerous applications. 18. It would be evident from pleadings on record that the petitioner does not reside in Gaya district nor he has any activities there, as he has not been seen in aforesaid district for seven to eight years, since 2000, when he last lost Assembly election unsuccessfully. On the contrary, even the affidavit filed by Gaya Police supports the assertion of petitioner that he resides at Patna. 19. In view of the aforesaid facts, it would be Security Committee of Patna district which would-be appropriate authority for evaluating the security need and deployment of the same for due protection of life and property of petitioner. 20. Now this court reverts to the other submission of the petitioner that non- production of report of S.H.O., Fatehpur Block on record has caused disability in evaluating the correctness and merit of the report. 21. This court finds that the District Security Committee of Gaya has noted the circumstances mentioned by S.H.O., Fatehpur in its report, for arriving at conclusion that petitioner does not have any security threat in Gaya district. 21. This court finds that the District Security Committee of Gaya has noted the circumstances mentioned by S.H.O., Fatehpur in its report, for arriving at conclusion that petitioner does not have any security threat in Gaya district. The Committee noted that S.H.O. on enquiry has found that the petitioner mainly stays at Patna and Delhi and he has not been seen at Gaya, after he last fought election in 1995 and 2000. Thus I find that the District Security Committee had discussed the findings and enquiry report of S.H.O. Fatehpur and mere non appending the aforesaid report of S.H.O., would not cause any disability or prejudice as main crux of the report has been discussed with due reasoning. 22. It is also not a case that District Security Committee, Gaya did not detail the materials on basis of which the SHO gave its opinion that petitioner did not have any threat perception in Gaya district. If the District Security Committee would not have discussed the materials gathered by SHO, Fatehpur it may have amounted to withholding relevant facts denying effective and real hearing. In the instant case, the position is otherwise, as all necessary information collected by SHO has been brought on record. The same finds elaborately detailed in decision of Gaya District Security Committee in its resolution dated 30.8.2007 as contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. There cannot be any dispute to the proposition of law laid by the U.S. Court that hearing would not be deemed to be real hearing in the eyes of law, if confidential information is withheld. 23. Thus the passage quoted from decision of US Court rendered in case of Jay V/s. Boyd reported in 351 US 345 reported to by Rt. Hn. Sir Robert Megary in his book "New Miscellany at Law would have no applicability in the facts of this case. 24. Once having come to the conclusion that Patna District Security Committee would be appropriate authority to take decision regarding consideration of security threat, the main question that will fall for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to security in the facts and circumstances of the case. 25. It would appear from the pleadings on record that the District Administration had earlier provided security to petitioner in view of his pro-active and aggressive journalism leading to threat to his life. 25. It would appear from the pleadings on record that the District Administration had earlier provided security to petitioner in view of his pro-active and aggressive journalism leading to threat to his life. A Bench of this court way back in 1998 also directed for providing security to the petitioner. The petitioner subsequently became member of National Commission of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes in 2002. He was provided security while at Delhi and also on his numerous visits to the State of Bihar. As a member of National Commission of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, he took stern action against M.L.As. State Minister and others as it would be apparent from the statements made in the aforeqoing paragraphs and Annexures-5, 5/1, 7 and 7/1 to this application already detailed in foregoing paragraphs. It is not disputed that the petitioner after expiration of his term as a Member of National Commission for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes has been residing at Patna alongwith his family members. His children are also studying in Patna. There is no allegation that petitioner is an accused in any criminal case. 26. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the threat perception to the life of petitioner cannot be denied and said to be fancied. State is bound to protect and ensure right of life of a citizen guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 27. In the circumstances, this court directs that the respondent-State as well as Patna District Security Committee to provide security to the petitioner. This court cannot give any specific direction whether one or two guards is to be provided. The nature of security to be provided to the petitioner would be considered by the respondent authorities. It would be open to the authorities to review continuance of security periodically. 28. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is allowed to the extent mentioned above.