JUDGMENT (Prayer: Petition - filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records culminating into the order dated 08.07.2019 in Na.Ka.No.G/Escort Charges/2019 passed by the respondent quashing the same and directing the respondent to provide gunman security to the petitioner and his family.) 1. This writ petition was filed challenging the impugned order of the respondent dated 08.07.2019 and for a consequential direction to provide security to the petitioner and his family due to potential life threat faced by them. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the Joint Organiser of a political party and he is also involved in public service. The petitioner faced life threat from anti-social elements and hence, he lodged a complaint in the year 2013 to the respondent requesting to provide security. No security was provided and the petitioner and his family were continuously under death threat. Ultimately, one more complaint was given in the year 2016 and on considering the same and also the fact that there was a threat faced by the petitioner and his family, the Protective Security Officer was provided. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that, all of a sudden, the Security Officer was taken back by the respondent. Once again the petitioner made a representation on 28.02.2017 and a Security Officer with gun was provided to the petitioner from March-2017. This arrangement went on without any interruption till the year 2019. 4. During July 2019, the Security Officer was removed even without assigning any reason. The petitioner was directed to pay an exorbitant amount as arrears for the security already provided in order to continue the security. Aggrieved by the same, the order passed by the respondent, dated 08.07.2019 has been put to challenge before this Court. 5. When the matter came up for hearing on 24.01.2022, this Court passed the following order: “This Writ Petition is filed challenging the withdrawal of gunman Security provided to the petitioner, on the ground that the petitioner has failed to pay the charges to the tune of Rs.16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen lakhs only) and he misused the protection given to him by taking the Escort to unauthorized places. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner seeks extension of protection, in view of the life threat. 3. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner seeks extension of protection, in view of the life threat. 3. From the counter, this Court understood that having sought for protection and agreed to pay Escort charges, the petitioner has not paid Escort charges which runs to Rs.16,00,000/-. Thereafter, after absconding report received from the Special Branch Inspector, the Superintendent of police has withdrawn the police protection and issued notice, which is now impugned in the writ petition. 4. If the petitioner is really interested in getting the extension of PSO protection, he is directed to deposit the arrears of Rs. 16,00,000/-(Rupees Sixteen Lakhs only) within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On such deposit, the request in the writ petition will be considered. 5. Post the matter after four weeks.” 6. When the writ petition was taken up for hearing today, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was never informed that providing security will involve so much of costs to the petitioner and if the petitioner had been informed about the same, even in the beginning, the petitioner would have insisted for providing a free Security Officer, since the petitioner cannot afford to pay so much of costs for security. He also submitted that since the petitioner does not have the financial wherewithal to pay the amount as demanded by the respondent, he was not in a position to comply with the order passed by this Court on 24.01.2022. 7. It was further submitted that the inability on the part of the petitioner to pay the amount, cannot be a ground to leave the petitioner and his family in lurch, more particular when they are facing potential life threat. To substantiate the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to the notice of this Court the relevant averment made in the counter affidavit. In view of the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner urged this Court to interfere with the impugned order passed by the respondent and to direct the respondent to provide continuing security for the petitioner and his family members. 8. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner did not comply with the order passed by this Court on 24.01.2022 and hence, he is not entitled for any security guard. 8. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner did not comply with the order passed by this Court on 24.01.2022 and hence, he is not entitled for any security guard. He further submitted that providing a gunman security to the petitioner and his family, cannot come free of cost and the petitioner, having already availed a security till the year 2019, should pay the arrears of amount accumulated to the tune of Rs.17 lakhs. In view of the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor urged this Court to dismiss this writ petition. 9. On carefully going through the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it is seen that the petitioner was provided with security, only based on the report to the effect that there was a life threat to the petitioner and his family members. The security officer has been withdrawn on the ground that the petitioner failed to pay the costs for the security, which had accumulated to the tune of nearly Rs.17 lakhs. The petitioner had made it very clear that he cannot afford to pay such huge costs for his security. 10. In the counter affidavit, the respondent has taken the following stand and for proper appreciation, the same is extracted hereunder: “.... 15. It is pertinent to re-state that the petitioner's request for free PSO based on threat perception has been sent to Security Branch to be considered under State Security Committee. The orders thereunder will be adhered to. Until then, no PSO can be provided free of cost since it has not been ordered by State Security Committee. ....” 11. On carefully considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it would suffice to direct the respondent to follow up the stand taken in the counter affidavit within a time frame. If the petitioner is not in a position to pay the costs, the only other alternative is to see, if a free security can be provided after taking into consideration the threat perspective faced by the petitioner and his family. 12. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to follow up with the State Security Committee on the free security and to take a final decision within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to follow up with the State Security Committee on the free security and to take a final decision within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This direction will sufficiently safeguard the interest of the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation to the respondent along with a copy of this order. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.