IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 9953 of 2005 Between: Gadde Babu Rao, S/o. Late Venkata Ratnam, R/o. Cheepurupalli Village, Vizianagaram District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Principal Secretary. 2 Director General Of Police, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 Additional Director General Of Police, (Intelligence), Hyderabad. 4 Superintendent of Police, Vizianagaram. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or direction declaring the action of the respondents in not providing gunman to the Petitioner as illegal arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to provide gunman to the petitioner forthwith and pass such other or further orders as the Hon'ble Court feels deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.TADDI.NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioner submits that he is an Ex-MLA from Cheepurupalli Constituency and also elected as MLC. He further submits the People War Group (PWG) shot dead a Circle Inspector of Police and as he attended the funeral, the PWG has resented his action and targeted him. He further submits that inter state dacoit gang broke open his house and threatened the inmates but the said persons were arrested and convicted. In view of the said happenings, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents to provide gunmen on free of cost but the said representation was not considered. It is the case of the petitioner that his case was earlier recommended by the IG of police but no gunmen was provided. 2. This Court while admitting the writ petition directed the respondents to consider and dispose the representation of the petitioner dated 15.01.2004. 3. Counter has been filed stating that pursuant to the said representation dated 15.01.2004 two gunmen were provided at the cost of the petitioner with effect from 06.05.2005 but the petitioner refused to take this facility of gunmen at his costs. However, on the representation made by the petitioner on 23.08.2004 for security, instructions were issued by the Additional Director General of Police, by his proceedings dated 05.11.2004 for arranging a point book at his house and accordingly watch/point book is being maintained from November 2004 onwards at the house of the petitioner. Two beats also are provided at the house of the petitioner and instructions were issued to the Night Patrolling Officer to alert night beat Police Constables and also private security men of the petitioner. 4. It is further stated that there is no threat, at present, to the petitioner and two gunmen provided for security of the petitioner at his cost has been refused by the petitioner himself. Insofar as the other allegations are concerned that there was a threat from PWG, it is stated that there is no threat from PWG. There is no such evidence that PWG has included the name of the petitioner in the hit list. Insofar as the dacoit case is concerned, it is stated that the dacoits were arrested and convicted. As per the Government orders unless there is a threat from PWG, extremists, and naxalites, gunmen cannot be provided at the State cost. Therefore, the gunmen provided at the cost of the petitioner cannot be find fault with but the petitioner himself refused to accept the gunmen as he was not prepared to bear the cost. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I do not see any merits in the writ petition and the respondents cannot be directed to provide gunmen at the cost of the State. However, it is always open to the petitioner to make a representation as and when there is a threat. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J March 7, 2008 DSK