IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION NO.7167 OF 2007 Gangula Subhas Reddy .... PETITIONER AND The Inspector of Police and others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION NO.7167 OF 2007 ORDER: The petitioner claims to be an active member of Congress Party and law-abiding citizen hailing from Erragudidinne Village, Rudravaram Mandal, Kurnool District. As a consequence of his efforts to remain away from committing violence and self-aggrandizement and to enlighten and enliven the oppressed masses, disapproving the aggressive postures of his opponents who are yielding political power in the area to terrorize the masses with their might and wealth his personal life and liberty is put to danger. 2. The petitioner also claims that he has considerable agricultural lands in Erragudidinne and Giddaluru Villages which require constant supervision and mobility. He is also facing threat from the Naxalites operating in the area. He therefore, claims that there is a lot of threat perception to his personal life and property and, therefore, requires security by Gunmen. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that earlier the petitioner was provided with two gunmen at his own cost and later when the security was withdrawn, he filed writ petition No.11697 of 1998, for a direction to the respondents to continue two Gunmen at the cost of the petitioner. This Court considered the matter and in the light of the guidelines issued in G.O.Rt.No.655 Home (SC.B) Department, dated 13.03.1997, by order dated 26.10.1999, disposed of the writ petition directing the petitioner to make an application to the Inspector General of Police (Intelligence), Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad/Security Review Committee, and in turn the Security Review Committee was directed to consider and assess the requirement of security in the light of the said G.O. and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and till such time, to continue to provide two gunmen to the petitioner on payment of usual charges. 4. Complaining that despite the continuance of threat, respondent No.3 herein i.e., Superintendent of Police, Kurnool, has withdrawn one gunman without assessing the requirement as directed by this Court in W.P.No.11697 of 1998 dated 26.10.1999, the petitioner filed the present petition seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in withdrawing one gunman as escort as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to provide additional escort. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of on a short ground. 6. The petitioner filed this writ petition in the year 2007, projecting the threat perception as existed then. Respondent No.3 in his counter has stated that although the petitioner is a resident of Erragudidinne Village, but visiting the village occasionally and during such visits, the local police is providing additional bondobust depending on the security and law and order requirements. It is therefore, clear that additional security is being provided whenever the petitioner visits the village and services of at least one gunman has been provided for several years. The petitioner alleges that the threat to his life and property has not ceased and an assessment by the Security Review Committee would certainly justify that he should be provided with at least two gunmen. It may be mentioned that the counter is silent on this aspect as to whether the Security Review Committee has reviewed the situation after 2007. 7. Having regard to the above facts, I am of the opinion that a fresh assessment may have to be made as to the perceivable threat to the petitioner by the Security Review Committee and take a decision on such assessment. 8. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the petitioner to make a fresh application for providing additional gunmen within a period of three weeks from today. On such application being made by the petitioner, the respondents are directed to refer the said application to the Security Review Committee which shall consider objectively as per the guidelines in G.O.Rt.No.655 Home (SC.B) Department, dated 13.03.1997 and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks thereafter and communicate the same to the petitioner. 9. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2010. Note: Issue C.C. by one week (B/o) YVL