THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 20155 of 2008 Oral order: Questioning the orders issued by respondent No.2, namely the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada, in Memo dated 18.08.2008 rejecting the representation of the petitioner for providing security, the present writ petition is filed. The petitioner earlier filed writ petition in W.P. No. 16207 of 2008 questioning the inaction of respondent No.2 in considering his representation dated 17.05.2008 for providing personal security in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 655, dated 13.03.2008 as illegal and arbitrary. The said writ petition, by order dated 14.08.2008 was disposed of by this Court directing respondent No.2 to obtain threat perception report and then take appropriate decision on the basis of such report. Respondent No.2 in compliance of the said order, considered the representation dated 17.05.2008 of the petitioner and vide the orders dated 18.08.2008 impugned in this writ petition rejected the same. Respondent No.2 rejected the request of the petitioner for providing personal security on the ground that he is shown as accused in the following reasons: (a) Cr. No. 247/99 u/s. 302 IPC of S.R. Nagar P.S., Hyderabad City. The case is P.T. vide S.C. No. 518/2003 before Hon’ble I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. (b) Cr. No. 142/2008 u/s. 44, 324, 323 r/w 149 of IPC of Unguturu P.S., Vijayawada City. The case is P.T. vide C.C. No. 145/2008 before the Hon’ble V Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. (c) Cr. No. 106/2007 of Untuturu P.s. and Cr. No. 75/2007 of Gannavaram P.S. The petitioner states that he is into social service, and that he has been falsely implicated in the above mentioned cases at the instance of his political rivals, obviously with a view to ensure that his political career is scuttled. The petitioner states that he is an educated person and not a habitual offender. He states that respondent No.2 has not considered his representation in the light of G.O. Rt. No. 655, dated 13.03.1997 in right perspective and prayed that the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 rejecting his request for providing personal security be set aside and the writ petition be allowed. This Court by order 16.09.2008 while admitting the writ petition ordered notice to the respondents. Respondent No.2 having received the notice, filed counter denying the allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition and contended that the petitioner is accused in four criminal case i.e. Crime Nos. 106 of 2007 and 75 of 2007 on the files of Ungutur and Gannavaram Police Stations respectively and C.C. No. 145 of 2008 on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada and S.C. No. 518 of 2003 on the file of I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, and therefore, no security can be provided to him. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner filed additional affidavit stating that he is contesting elections as Member of Parliament of Vijayawada Lok Sabha constituency on TDP ticket and that respondents except providing one gunman, have not provided him proper security, that only one case in S.C. No. 518 of 2003 on the file of I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, is pending, while other cases either ended in compromise or were withdrawn, and that there is serious threat to his life. Taking into consideration the above facts stated by the petitioner in the additional affidavit, this Court on 20.04.2009 made the following order: In additional to the Gunman already provided, the respondents are directed to provide one more Gunman to the petitioner for his personal security at his cost, for a period of four weeks. Post after four weeks. The petitioner filed another application in W.P.M.P. No. 14387 of 2009, supported by additional affidavit, bringing to the notice of the Court subsequent developments that have taken place during the course of his campaign in the elections, and that there is threat to his life from anti social elements, and that except one case in S.C. No. 518 of 2003 on the file of I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, which is at the final stage, no case is pending against him, and prayed that the writ petition be allowed directing the respondents to provide at least 2 + 2 security personnel at his cost. The respondents have not filed any counter to the above application. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for the respondents. In view of the subsequent developments, which the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court in the additional affidavit filed by him along with the W.P.M.P. No. 14387 of 2009, to which no counter is filed by the respondents, and considering the fact that the petitioner is apprehending threat to his life from anti-social elements, without going into the merits of the matter, this Court deems appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: The petitioner is directed to make fresh representation to the respondents, particularly respondent No.2, bringing to his notice the subsequent developments, which he brought to the notice of this Court in the above W.P.M.P., and the threat he is said to be facing to his life, within a period of ten days from today. On such representation being filed, respondent No.2, namely the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada, shall consider the same in the light of the threat perception to the life of the petitioner and without making any reference to the impugned order and pass appropriate orders for providing security as requested by the petitioner at his cost. Till the representation of the petitioner is considered and disposed of, respondent No.2 shall continue to provide one gunman security to the petitioner that is now being provided at his cost. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 18th June, 2009. KSR