IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 16207 of 2008 Between: Dr. Vamsi Mohan, S/o Vallabhaneni Ramesh Chand Vallabhaneni Aruna Memorial Charitabel Trust, Gannavaram, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Home (SC-B) Department, rep by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declarign the action of the 2nd respondent in not providing personnel security to the petitioner as sought by the petitioner vide representation dated 17-5-2008 as arbitrary, illegal, offending Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently directthe Respondents to provide security to the petitioner forthwith and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.V.SITARAMAMURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 16207 of 2008 Oral Order: On 28-07-2008 and 08-08-2008 the learned government Pleader for Home sought time to obtain instructions from the 2nd respondent as to the reason for not considering and taking an appropriate decision on the petitioner’s representation dated 17-05-2008 seeking personal security cover. The petitioner apprehends a threat to his personal security and life. He made a representation on 17-05-2008 to the 2nd respondent seeking provision of security personnel to safeguard his life. No decision has been taken on the said representation by the 2nd respondent, is the complaint. When an application is made by a citizen alleging imminent and proximal danger to his life and requests a personal security, it is incumbent on the police to take expeditious action on such representation by obtaining a threat perception report from the concerned. This the second respondent failed to do. In the circumstances the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to forthwith obtain a threat perception report regarding the petitioner and to take an appropriate decision on the basis of such report, in any event within a period of five (5) days from today. Learned Government Pleader for Home is present in the Court and has noted this part of the order and has undertaken to convey the 2nd respondent today itself telephonically which would constitute sufficient notice and intimation to the 2nd respondent as to the obligations under this order. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 14-08-2008 pvks