Patna High Court
Lalan KumarversusThe Union Of India and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The High Court held that it had no jurisdiction to modify the order after the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn and that the petitioner could approach the Ministry of Home Affairs for Z‑category security.
Summary
The petitioner, Lalan Kumar, filed writ petitions seeking Z‑category security cover, which were later withdrawn. The High Court, while dismissing the petitions as withdrawn, issued an order directing the Divisional Security Committee to consider the petitioner’s request for security on his own cost and to withdraw any existing cover. The petitioner subsequently filed a modification petition alleging that the Court lacked jurisdiction to issue such directions after the withdrawal and that only the Ministry of Home Affairs is empowered to grant Z‑category security. The Court held that once a writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, the Court becomes functus officio and cannot modify the earlier order; moreover, the petitioner remains free to approach the appropriate authority for security. Consequently, the modification petition was dismissed and the earlier orders were left undisturbed.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court retained jurisdiction to modify its order after dismissing the writ petition as withdrawn
- Whether the Divisional Security Committee is competent to consider a request for Z‑category security cover
- Whether the petitioner’s liberty to approach the Ministry of Home Affairs precludes the need for modification of the Court’s order
Subjects
- writ petition
- withdrawal
- jurisdiction
- functus officio
- security cover
- Z category security
- Divisional Security Committee
- Ministry of Home Affairs
- modification of order
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.586 of 2017
In
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.205 of 2016
======================================================
Lalan Kumar S/o Late Kamleshwari Prasad resident of Hiralal Lane
Chhajjubag, P.S.-Gandhi Maidan, Dist.-Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union Of India and Ors
2. The Home Secretary, Government of India, New Delhi
3. The State of Bihar, through the Home Secretary.
4. The Commandant, BMP-6, MUzaffarpur, Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No. 592 of 2017
In
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.205 of 2016
======================================================
Lalan Kumar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar and Ors
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No. 586 of 2017)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nagendra Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Additional Solicitor General
For the UOI : Mr. Ram Tujabh Singh, CGC
(In Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No. 592 of 2017)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nagendra Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Verma, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
6 23-04-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The present application has been preferred:
for modification of order dated
16.11.16 of Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Sri
Hemant Gupta passed in criminal writ
Patna High Court MJC No.586 of 2017(6) dt.23-04-2026
2/4
jurisdiction case No 205/2016, which was
heard and disposed of with Cr. Writ
jurisdiction No 208/2016, on the ground of an
apparent error in law and facts on record,
whereby this Hon'ble Court on request of the
petitioner though dismissed the writ petitions
as withdrawn but further passed the order on
merit literally deciding the case finally against
the petitioner even without adjudication of the
case on merit and also in view of the fact that
Divisional security Committee is not
competent /empowered to consider the
representation submitted by the petitioner for
providing "Z" category (Central Protectees)
security cover on no payment basis within the
State of Bihar, in other State and Indian
Territories rather it is department of Home
Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India which
is competent/empowered to scrutinize and
evaluate the actual threat perception to life of
the petitioner and accordingly competent to
grant categorize security equivalent to "Z"
category. It is respectfully submitted that after
allowing the withdrawal of the petition, the
Court virtually becomes functus officio and
thus has no jurisdiction at all to pass any kind
of further order in the said matter. Thus the
direction in para 3 is without jurisdiction and
an error apparent in law. [(2008)2 SCC 507;
Ajay Mohan Versus HN Rai @ para 24].
3. This Court has gone through the orders passed by the
Patna High Court MJC No.586 of 2017(6) dt.23-04-2026
3/4
Criminal Writ Court in Cr. WJC No. 205 of 2016 (Lalan Kumar
vs. State and Union of India & ors.) and Cr. WJC No. 208 of 2016
(Lalan Kr. vs. State of Bihar & ors.) and the short order read as
follows:
Heard learned counsel for the
parties.
2. Learned counsel for the
petitioner wishes to withdraw the present writ
petitions. The request is allowed. The petitions
are thus dismissed as withdrawn.
3. But it is ordered that the
Divisional Security Committee, on a
representation submitted by the petitioner,
shall consider if any security is to be provided
to the petitioner at his own cost in terms of the
orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
However, In the meanwhile, the security cover
provided to the petitioner shall be withdrawn
forthwith.
4. It is further ordered that if the
petitioner has any grievance then he is at
liberty to make a mention in the present
petitions only in view the conduct of the
petitioner in filing petitions soon after one
petition is decided.
4. From the aforesaid order, it is clear that the writ
petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
5. The Writ Court was careful enough to record that the
Divisional Security Committee shall look into the representation
Patna High Court MJC No.586 of 2017(6) dt.23-04-2026
4/4
of the petitioner and if needs any security cover, it is to be
provided on his own cost in terms of orders of the Hon’ble Apex
Court.
6. In that background, the direction to withdraw the
security cover forthwith looses its meaning when the liberty was
already granted to approach the aforesaid Committee.
7. In the modification petition, the prayer is that actually
for the Z Category Security, one has to move before the
Department of Home Ministry, Government of India and not
before the Divisional Security Committee.
8. The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
Liberty, in that background, is/was always available before the
petitioner to move before an appropriate forum where the prayer
for Z Security can be considered. In that background, there is no
reason to modify the earlier order passed by the Writ Court.
9. Both the MJC No. 586 of 2017 and MJC No. 592 of
2017 stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/-
U
Checking your session…