THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLESRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No. 368/2011 Date of Order: 4-5-2011 Between: B. Karunakar Reddy ..Appellant And 1. The Superintendent of Police, Urban Police District, Tirupati, Chittoor District, and another. ..Respondents The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLESRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No. 368/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) This writ appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is filed aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dt.25-4-2011 passed in WP No.9805/2011. The writ petitioner was an active participant in Students’ Organisations while he was a student and was involved in various activities relating to social work. In recognition of his social work, and ideology, he was appointed as one of the members of the Committee constituted to negotiate with the naxal group leaders on behalf of the Government in the year 2004. As a member of the Negotiations Committee, he took active participation in talks with naxal group leaders. Since he was one of the members of the Negotiations Committee, he was provided with security (Personal Security Officers) of 4 +4 ie., four gunmen on a shift basis, which was continued upto September, 2009. In November, 2009, the security was reduced from 4+4 gunmen to 2+2 gunmen, and again the same was reduced to 1+1 gunmen in the month of October,2010. On such reduction, the petitioner approached the Superintendent of Police to know the reasons as to why security was reduced but he was not made known of the reasons. But, suddenly, by the impugned notice dt. 6-4-2011, the Superintendent of Police, Urban Police District, Tirupati informed the petitioner that he is not eligible for provision of Gunman (PSO) as per the threat perception reports and the guidelines contained in G.O.Rt.No.655, Home (SC-B) Department dt. 13-3-1997. Aggrieved by the impugned notice, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the notice in C.No.425/SB/TPT U/2011 dt. 6-4-2011 intimating that he is not eligible for provision of Gunman (PSO) as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Arts. 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution. The first respondent-Superintendent of Police, Urban Police District, Tirupati, filed a counter-affidavit while opposing the writ petition stated that in the light of certain instructions and guidelines for the provision of personal security officers to Constitutional and Statutory functionaries and to private persons issued by the High Court in WP Nos.291/95, 10432 and 12172 of 1996, the Government issued certain guidelines in G.O. Rt.No.655, Home (SC-B) Department dt. 13-3-1997 with regard to the provision of security/personal security officers to private persons. When the petitioner is not entitled to security in the light of the guidelines issued in G.O.Rt.No.655 dt. 13-3-1997, the Security Review Committee decided to withdraw the security provided to the petitioner in its meeting held on 5-3-2011 in terms of G.O.Rt.No.655 dt.13- 3-1997 and the same has been informed to the petitioner through the impugned notice. Withdrawing security given to the petitioner was reviewed by the Security Review Committee in the light of the guidelines issued and there is no arbitrariness in withdrawing the security. The Security Review Committee reviewed the security provided to 220 non-constitutional protectees and a total of 298 cases were scrupulously scrutinized by the Security Review Committee, which met on 5-3-2011 and found only 110 deserving cases qualified for provision of security. In the light of the report of the Security Review Committee rejecting security to the petitioner, impugned notice has been issued. The security to the petitioner was not recommended as the petitioner does not have threat from the extremists and further activities of CPI Maoists have totally been curtained in Chittoor District. As per the threat perception report of Superintendent of Police, Tirupathi (Urban) District, and Deputy Inspector General of Police, SIB, there is no specific threat to the life of the petitioner from CPI Maoists or any other extremists and therefore the security cover is not recommended. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner strenuously contends that when the security is provided to several people as per the interim orders passed by this court dt. 4-3-2011 in WPMP No.6677/2011 in WP No.5377/2011 and dt.1-4- 2011 in WPMP No.11123/2011 in WP No.8960/2011, the petitioner cannot be discriminated in continuing the security and therefore, the leaned single Judge was not justified in dismissing the writ petition holding that no person can claim as of right that the State should provide him with personal security to ensure that his life is protected having regard to the fact that he was one of the members of the Negotiation Committee constituted to talk with naxals and merely because naxals acts have been curtailed is not a ground in withdrawing the security to the petitioner and therefore the impugned notice is liable to be set aside and security already given to him prior to the impugned notice is to be continued. This Court in WP Nos.291/95, 10432 and 12171 of 1996 issued certain instructions and guidelines to be followed for provision of personal security officers to the Constitutional and Statutory functionaries and to private persons. This court further observed that the private persons should be given personal security officers only on payment basis because the moneys of the exchequer cannot be utilised for protection of private individuals who claim security for a variety of reasons. It was further observed that provision of personal security officers on payment basis not be an automatic obligation of the Police Department but depending on the availability of force and threat perception. In the light of the directions issued by this Court, the State Government through G.O.Rt.No.655, Home (SC.B) Department dt. 13- 3-1997 issued guidelines to be followed with regard to the provision of security/personal security officers to private persons. Under Guideline No.8, the Superintendent of Police of a district or the Commissioner of Police of the City are the Unit Officers at District/City level, and the Inspector General of Police (Intelligence) and the Government of Andhra Pradesh at the State level, to decide the security to be provided. G.O.Rt.No.655 dt. 13-3-1997 contains general guidelines for providing security. They are as under: 1. While it is the duty of the State to protect every citizen, specific security cover to any individual can be provided on his threat perception. 2. A private person may be provided individual security on threat perception only on advance payment basis subject to availability to man-power with the unit officer concerned. 3 to 13. x x xx. Admittedly, the petitioner is not either a Constitutional functionary or Statutory functionary to claim protection under guideline No.3, which envisages that Constitutional functionaries and Statutory functionaries have to be provided security at State’s cost based on threat perception. Except petitioner’s nomination as a member to the Negotiations Committee constituted to talk with naxals in the year 2004 and was provided security PSO of 4+4 and continuing the same till September, 2009 and it was reduced to 2 + 2 and subsequently from 1 + 1 he is not entitled to claim protection as a matter of right. It was specifically mentioned in the impugned notice and also reiterated in the counter-affidavit that matters were referred to Security Review Committee and it considered 298 cases in its meeting held on 5-3- 2011 and only 110 cases were qualified for provision of security and rejected the remaining cases including the petitioner’s case on objective analysis of the impending threat perception scenarios from all possible angles. In the absence of any mala fides attributed or conclusions drawn by the Security Review Committee are based on no evidence, the petitioner is not entitled to claim security as a matter of right. This court in KATASANI RAMI REDDY V. GOVERNMEN OF ANDHRA PRADESH[1] has elaborately dealt with the issue of providing personal security officers and held that whenever personal security is provided to a person, it must be constantly reviewed by the concerned Superintendent of Police and when on the basis of information available with him he genuinely feels that the threat has vanished, he may recall the security. Admittedly, in the present case, the Security Review Committee objectively assessed the case of the petitioner along with others for continuing the security provided earlier and as there is no threat perception to the petitioner, he was informed that he is not eligible for provision of gunman (PSO). This court does not find any illegality or infirmity in reaching the said conclusion by the Security Review Committee. It is needless to say subjective satisfaction arrived at by the committee constituted cannot be a matter of judicial review. We do not find any infirmity or illegality in dismissing the writ petition by the learned single Judge warranting our interference. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, if the petitioner desirous to have personal security on payment basis, he can make a representation to the concerned authority by depositing the amount in advance as determined by the authority concerned provided sufficient man power is available with the concerned authority, and on such representation being filed, the concerned authority shall consider and pass appropriate orders. No costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. _______​_______ G.CHANDRAIAH J. 4-5-2011 KMR [1] 1998 Crl.L.J. 3897