HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10993 OF 2008 Date: 12th July 2010 Between: Sri P.Rajagopal Rao. … Petitioner And The Addl. Director General of Police, Intelligence Department, A.P., Hyderabad & others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10993 OF 2008 ORDER: Although interlocutory matters are listed for hearing, at the request of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the writ petition itself is heard and is being disposed of. In the writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in withdrawing the security given to him, with effect from 9th May 2008. The petitioner is a resident of Ramnagar of Mancherial town in Adilabad District. He is the proprietor of cinema theatres and also it is stated that he is an active worker of a political party. It is the case of the petitioner that as there was a threat to his life from the extremist organisation, initially, he was provided with three gunmen for protection and when the said protection was withdrawn, he approached this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.26001 of 2005, and by virtue of the directions issued by this Court in the order, dated 20th of August 2007 in the said writ petition, petitioner was provided with security, but subsequently, it was withdrawn without any valid reason. Counter affidavit is filed by the 3rd respondent-Circle Inspector of Police, Mancherial, Adilabad District. In the counter affidavit, while denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that in the meeting held on 17th and 18th of December 2007, the Security Review Committee assessed the threat perception to the petitioner and decided to withdraw the security provided to him, as he no longer faces threat from Maoists. It is stated that in pursuance o such decision of the Review Committee, the personal security officers provided to the petitioner, were withdrawn on 7th February 2008. When a notice was sent again on behalf of the petitioner on the ground that he was not given sufficient notice before withdrawing the security provided to him, the security was again restored for few more weeks and was withdrawn with effect from 15.05.2008. It is also stated that the petitioner was issued with the arms license n 07.06.2005 vide License No.164/III/MNCL/L.PET, and he has already purchased a pistol and is in possession of the same. It is pleaded in the counter that there is no necessity for providing security to the petitioner as the threat posed to him by the Maoists ceased to exist, but in view of the directions issued by this Court in the earlier writ petition, security was restored to him. During the course of arguments, it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that presently, the petitioner is not having security and it was withdrawn four months back. It is also submitted that he has also submitted an application for renewal of the arms license, but the same is pending consideration. So far as the renewal of arms license is concerned, the District Collector is the competent authority to renew the same. If the license granted to the petitioner is expired, it is open for him to approach the competent authority for renewal under the Arms Act. So far as the security is concerned, it is no doubt there is a direction from this Court earlier in W.P.No.26001 of 2005 for giving security to the petitioner at the cost of the State, but it is also open for the respondents to review the threat perception from time to time. On the ground that there is a threat, petitioner cannot continuously seek for protection. It is for the respondents to assess the threat perception periodically and to give protection if necessary, as per the assessment made by the Security Review Committee. When it is stated in the counter that the Review Committee has found that there is no threat to the petitioner as of now from the Maoists, as alleged by the petitioner, no direction can be given to continue the security for indefinite period. Even as per the statement made by the learned counsel for petitioner, no security is provided to the petitioner at present and in case if any threat is there, it is open for the petitioner to approach the authorities by giving instances and the material in support of such threat and seek for protection, but in view of the decision taken by the respondents in December 2007, and in view of withdrawal of security, as stated by the petitioner, about four months back, no direction can be granted now to continue the security. However, if any application is made by the petitioner bringing to the notice of the respondents about the threat to his life from the Maoists, it is open for the respondents to consider the threat perception afresh and take appropriate decision. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 12th July 2010 ajr