IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6672 of 2009 Between: P.M.Vara Prasad Reddy S/o.P.Obula Reddy R/o.D.No.1-4-39, Pulivendula, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director General of Police, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The Additional Director General of Police (Intelligence) Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 4 The Superintendent of Police, Kadapa, Kadapa District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.J.JANAKIRAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents:AGP FOR HOME ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in providing gunman to the petitioner pursuant to his representation, dated 24.01.2009, as illegal and arbitrary. In his affidavit, the petitioner averred that he is an active member of Telugu Desam Party (TDP), working as District Secretary, Kadapa, of the said party, for the last two years. He and his wife are contesting local elections from 1987 on behalf of the said political party. The petitioner further averred that apprehending threat to his life and the life of one Mahesh, Pulivendula, the President of TDP addressed letter, dated 03.10.2005 to the respondents to provide gunmen to both of them and that as security was not provided, the said Mahesh was brutally murdered on 21.03.2006. The petitioner also narrated an incident that has allegedly taken place in 1998, during which, the Congress Party workers allegedly attacked his house and set the same ablaze. The petitioner expressed serious apprehension of threat to his life and therefore, he felt aggrieved by non-provision of personal security to him by the District Police. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.4, it is inter alia stated that on receipt of representation, dated 24.01.2009 from the petitioner, respondent No.4 called for a threat perception report from the Inspector of Police, Pulivendula and that in view of the petitioner’s involvement in four criminal cases, a rowdy sheet was opened on 28.01.2006, which is being continued and valid till 31.12.2009. It is further stated that the enquiry report submitted by the Inspector of Police, Pulivendula, revealed that there was no threat to the petitioner from any rival group and that as the petitioner has also a criminal background, he is not eligible for provision of gunman in terms of G.O.Rt.No.655, Home (SC-B) Department, dated 13.03.1997. It is also stated that after receiving threat perception report, the answering respondent sent notice, dated 26.03.2009, which was personally served on the petitioner on 14.04.2009, wherein he was informed that as he was not facing any threat from any group or individual, he is not being provided with security cover. No reply affidavit is filed controverting the averments contained in the counter-affidavit. At the hearing, Sri J.Janakirami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an important functionary of the opposition party in the District, and being its Secretary, he is facing severe threat to his life and, therefore, respondent No.4 has not correctly assessed the threat perception. The learned counsel further submitted that the counter filed by respondent No.4 itself revealed that all the four criminal cases in which the petitioner figured as accused ended either in his acquittal or discharge as the case may be and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is having criminal background. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. The main criterion for providing personal security as envisaged in G.O.Rt.No.655, dated 13.03.1997 is the threat perception. Except the fact that the petitioner is the District Secretary of main opposition party in the State and his house was set on fire in 1998, no events have been narrated by the petitioner, which created a reasonable apprehension in his mind that his life is under threat either from the workers of the ruling party or any other rival group. In my considered view, mere fact that the petitioner is the District Secretary of the opposition party by itself would not raise a presumption that his life is under threat. In the absence of any cogent material produced by the petitioner in support of his apprehension of threat to his life, this Court cannot interfere with the conclusion arrived at by respondent No.4 that the threat perception, which is the sine qua non for providing personal security, does not exist in the case of the petitioner. Therefore, irrespective of whether the petitioner can be said to have criminal background in the wake of his acquittal or discharge in the criminal cases, I am of the view that denial of personal security to the petitioner by respondent No.4 cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary, in the absence of serious threat perception. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.8733 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 3rd JUNE, 2009. kvni