Shri Amit Sengupta v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPCR No.111 of 2017 • Shri Amit Sengupta S/o. Late Shri S. C. Sengupta, Aged About 59 Years R/o Flat No. 301, Building No. 52, Sea Wood Estate, Nerul, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, 400 706. Presently Holding The Post Of Vice President Of Ramkrishna Sarda Sevashram, Dharampura, Jagdalpur, Bastar (Chhattisgarh) P I N 494001.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Superintendent Of Police, P. S. Jagdalpur, District Bastar (Chhattisgarh) 494001.

2. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh 494001.

3. Ramkrishna Sarda Sevashram, Through Its Secretary Swami Vimuktanand, Dharampura, Jagdalpur, Bastar (Chhattisgarh) P I N 494001

4. Anil Kapre, Treasure, Ramkrishna Sarda Sevashram, Dharampura, Jagdalpur, Bastar (Chhattisgarh) P I N 494001.

5. Mihir Mistry, Accountant, Ramkrishna Sarda Sevashram, Dharampura, Jagdalpur, Bastar (Chhattisgarh) P I N 494001. ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Sharad Mishra, Advocate For Respondent/State :

Shri Arun Sao, Dy.AG Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 30/03/2017 Heard.

2.

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondent/State authorities to take action against respondents No.3 to 5 and provide safety and security to the petitioner to ensure his smooth movement in Jagdalpur.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a whistle blower and he is making various kind of enquiry into the alleged misconduct of respondents

No.3 to 5, who are ill-motivated against the petitioner and they may at any time cause injury to the petitioner. Therefore, in these circumstances, the State authorities may be directed to provide proper security to the petitioner. 4.

On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner appears to have made some kind of complaint before the policy authority in the month of December. He next submitted that if the petitioner again approaches the policy authority raising his grievances, the same shall be duly looked into. 6.

It is the duty of the State to protect life and liberty of every citizen. Therefore, if the petitioner has any apprehension, he may approach the Superintendent of Police, Bastar at Jagdalpur and the Superintendent of Police, Bastar at Jagdalpur shall look into the petitioner's grievance. Moreover, if the petitioner has any allegation against the respondents No.3 to 5, he may also approach the concerned Police Station and submit a report, which shall be duly enquired into.

7.

In view of aforesaid observation, this petition is finally disposed off. SD/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Tumane