ORAL ORDER 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. 2. 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 home but making permanent arrangement is not possible beyond the rule book. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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 option but providing security to the extent and satisfaction of the petitioner is not possible in the given facts and circumstances. 6. 5. 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 option but providing security to the extent and satisfaction of the petitioner is not possible in the given facts and circumstances. 6. 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.