GOPAL AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs --

(3.) According to the petitioner, a Body Guard was provided to him in view of the security threat to his life in the year 2003 for which there was no stipulation of payment, nor had the petitioner asked for the Body Guard. Specifically there was no written agreement between the petitioner and the respondent s in this behalf much less to the effect that any payment in relation thereto would be recovered by resort to the certificate proceeding. It is therefore submitted that the recovery of Rs.44,625.00 sought to be made from the petitioner towards cost of providing Body Guard through Certificate Case No. 04 of 2011 is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on a decision of this Court dtd. 30/11/2015 passed CWJC No. 1418 of 2013 in the case of Tarachand Agarwal @ Tarachand Dhanuk, who happens to be the father of the present petitioner. It is stated that the facts of the two cases are similar and the decision in the said case is applicable to the present set of facts as well.