1. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall remove all S.R. defects within three weeks from today.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.H. Khan, learned SC-1 for the State.

3. Petitioner in the present case is seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to provide appropriate security or protection to the petitioner for a smooth functioning of his flour and oil mill from the local miscreants and named accused of Hajipur Town P.S. Case no. 958 of 2019 registered for the offences under Sections 341/323/384/385/427/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been victim of unlawful demands of the named accused persons. They were always asking for mustard oil in rangdari. When the petitioner could not provide that, they started demanding cash in rangdari and after locking the mill they threatened that it will not be opened if you do not agree to pay the same.

5. An F.I.R. was registered in the year 2019 and after investigation, police has submitted a chargesheet against the accused persons namely Vijay Kumar Rai and Ajay Kumar vide chargesheet no. 156 of 2020.

6. It is submitted that till date the oil mill of the petitioner is lying closed and police has failed to provide protection to the petitioner.

7. A counter affidavit has been filed today on behalf of the respondent no. 5. It is stated that the investigation of the case is complete and the named accused persons have been chargesheeted. On the point of providing protection to the petitioner, Mr. N.H. Khan, learned Standing Counsel No. 1 submits that he has got instruction from the S.H.O. of the concerned police station that he will ensure that the shop of the petitioner is immediately opened and the petitioner shall be provided protection in running of the shop/ oil mill.

8. Taking note of the aforesaid statements of Mr. N.H. Khan, learned SC-1, this Court is disposing of this writ application.

9. This Court at this stage would remind the respondent that in India the place of the government is that of a parent of a citizen and the principle of parens patriae applies in the matter of providing protection to the life, liberty and property of the citizens of the country. This aspect of the matter has been well discussed and stated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Charan Lal Sahu versus Union of India (AIR 1990 SC 1480 [LQ/SC/1989/648] ). The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the concept known as "parens patriae", has held that the Government has the sovereign power of guardianship over the persons under disability and it is its duty to protect them. It was further held that where the citizens are not in a position to protect their rights the Government must intervene and fight for their rights. Relevant extract from the above decision of the Supreme Court is reproduced below at page 1504 :

"There is a concept known both in this country and abroad, called "parens patriae". Dr. B. K. Mukherjee in his 'Hindu Law of Religious-and Charitable Trusts,' Tagore Law Lectures, Fifth Edition, at p. 454, referring to the concept of parens patriae, has noted that in English Law, the Crown as parens patriae is the constitutional protector of all property subject to charitable trusts such trusts being essentially matters of public concern. Thus the position is that according to Indian concept parens patriae doctrine recognised King as the protector of all citizens and as parent. In Budhkaran Chaukhani v. Thakur Prasad Shah, AIR 1942 Cal 311 [LQ/CalHC/1941/113] the position was explained by the Calcutta High Court at page 318 of the report. The same position was reiterated by the said High Court in Banku Behary v. Banku Behary Hasra AIR 1943 Cal 203 at pp. 205 of the report. The position was further elaborated and explained by the Madras High Court in Kumaraswami Mudaliar v. Rajammal AIR 1957 Mad 563 at p. 567 of the report. This Court also recognised the concept of parens patriae relying on the observations of Dr. K. Mukherjee aforesaid in Ram Saroop v. S. P. Sahi, (1959) 2 Supp SCR 583 at pp. 598 and 599; AIR 1959 SC 951 [LQ/SC/1959/52] at pp. 958-959. In the “words and phrases" permanent Edition, Vol. 33 at p. 99, it is stated that parens patriae is the inherent power and authority of a Legislature to provide protection to the person and property of persons non suijuris, such as minor, insan, and incompetent persons, but the words "parens patriae" meaning thereby 'the father of the country', were applied originally to the King and are used to designate the state referring to its sovereign power of guardianship over persons under disability. (Emphasis supplied). Parens patriae jurisdiction, it has been explained, is the right of sovereign and imposes a duty on sovereign, in public interest, to protect persons under disability who have no rightful protector. The connotation of the term "parens patriae" differs from country to country, for instance, in England it is the King, in America, it is the people, etc. The Government is within its duty to protect and to control persons under disability. Conceptually, the parens patriae theory is the obligation of the State to protect and take into custody the rights and the privileges of its citizens was discharging its obligations. Our Constitution makes it imperative for the State to secure to all its citizens the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and where the citizens are not in a position to assert and secure their rights, the State must come into picture and protect and fight for the rights of the citizens. The preamble to the Constitution, read with the Directive Principles. Arts. 38, 39 and 39A enjoins the State to take up the responsibility. It is the protective measure to which the social welfare State is committed. It is necessary for the State to ensure the fundamental rights in conjunction with the Directive Principle of State Policy to effectively discharge its obligation and for this purpose, if necessary, to deprive some rights and privileges of the individual victims or their heirs to protect their rights better and secure these further."

10. From the counter affidavit of this case it appears that the fact that the oil mill of the petitioner has been locked by the miscreants and that they are creating trouble to the petitioner in running of the oil mill is not in dispute. In these circumstances, it is difficult to believe that the S.H.O. of the concerned police station is sitting idle for last three years which has compelled this petitioner to remain sitting idle and oil mill has been closed for all these years. This is nothing but a case of dereliction of duty on the part of the S.H.O. If he is not able to arrest the miscreants of the locality in accordance with law and protect the citizens who are within his jurisdiction, he is definitely answerable to each and all who are suffering due to inaction on the part of the S.H.O.

11. This Court, therefore, directs the S.H.O. of the Hajipur Town Police Station to ensure the opening of the lock of the oil mill which has been locked unauthorizedly by the miscreants, forthwith and provide adequate protection to the petitioner for running of the said mill.

12. The Superintendent of Police, Vaishali at Hajipur is also directed to look into this matter and ensure that any dereliction in duty on the part of his sub-ordinate in providing safety and security to a citizen must be dealt with sternly.

13. This application stands disposed of accordingly.

14. Certified copy of this order shall be made available only after removal of the defects.