Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010207632024 2025:GAU-AS:2301 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5247/2024 DIGANTA BURAGOHAIN S/O- LATE DHARMESWAR BURAGOHAIN, R/O- LOKNATH PATH, HOUSE NO. 17, P.O.- LAL GANESH, P.S.- FATASIL AMBARI, DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM, PIN- 781034. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY GOVT OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS HOME DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006. 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ULUBARI GUWAHATI KAMRUP(M) ASSAM PIN- 781007. 3:THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE SECURITY BRANCH KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI KAMRUP(M) PIN- 781019. 4:THE SUPERINTENDET OF POLICE KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN- 782460 Page No.# 2/3 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K ROYCHOUDHURY, MR G DEKA,MR. N G KUNDU Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER 05-03-2025 1. Heard Mr. P.K.Roychoudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. S. Konwar learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by not allowing his PSO to travel with him beyond the District of Karbi-Anglong. 3. The respondent State has filed an affidavit taking stand at para 12 that the petitioner has already been provided with one PSO from Karbi Anglong district and further considering the prayer of the petitioner for area extension of movement of his allotted PSO, a Threat Assessment Report (TAR) has been called from the DCP (Sec) Guwahati on 16.10.2024. 4. When the matter was taken up today for hearing, Ms. Konwar, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam, has produced a copy of instruction, which goes to show that taking note of TAR obtained from the SP, Karbi Anglong through the IGP (HR), Assam, Diphu, a PSO was recommended till completion of his work in Karbi Anglong. 5. It is contended that a separate Threat Assessment Report (TAR) was made so far the same relates to his home district and a report has been received from the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Sec), Guwahati on 08.01.2025 wherein it is concluded that protectee has no specific threat and therefore, it is not recommended for PSO. 6. It is also contended in the instruction that during the last two years, in view of improved security secenario, police personnel detailed as personal security have been withdrawn from more than 421 protectees as per the State Security Review Committee Page No.# 3/3 (SSRC) decisions. 7. In view of the aforesaid, Mr. Roychoudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a new cause of action has arisen and therefore, the writ petition may be closed with a liberty to file an appropriate writ petition. 8. Prayer stands allowed and the writ petition is dismissed on withdrawal with the liberty as prayed for. 9. However, the Superintendent of Police, SB (Security) Assam, Kahilipara,Guwahati shall formally communicate their decisions to the petitioner. Such communication be furnished to the petitioner within a period of 2 (two) weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order by the SP, SB (Security) Assam, Kahilipara, Guwahati. 10. Copies of instruction of the Superintendent of Police, SB (Security) Assam, Kahilipara, be kept on record. JUDGE Comparing Assistant