THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15352 of 2010 Dated 30th August, 2010 Between: Mohd. Abdul Qavi Abbassi. …Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary for Home, and others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mohd. Muzaffer Ullah Counsel for respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Home The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.3 in providing Police protection to him as illegal and unconstitutional. I have heard Sri Mohd. Muzaffer Ullah, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. The petitioner claims to belong to a political party which is not in power. When he was at the polling booth in Moghalpura Division in connection with re-polling on 23.01.2002, he was allegedly stopped by the persons belonging to MIM party in connection with which Crime No.11 of 2002 was registered for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The petitioner alleged that from the time of the said incident, the activists of MIM party have been targeting him. The petitioner narrated an incident allegedly taken place in 2009 pertaining to his giving in writing on 07.11.2009 to the Returning Officer relating to G.H.M.C. elections, wherein he has brought to the notice of the disqualification of an MIM candidate on account of his having more than two children and the alleged false averment contained in the affidavit filed by the said candidate. It is alleged that as the petitioner’s objection was not taken into consideration, he has filed a petition in the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, challenging the election of the said candidate and that he has also filed W.P.No.479 of 2010 for a direction to constitute an Election Tribunal. It is further stated that an Election Tribunal was constituted and the petitioner’s petition was taken on record by the said Tribunal. The petitioner alleged that as he has filed the said election petition, he was chased and hit with lethal weapons and therefore, he has approached respondent No.3 for protection on 26.04.2010 and 26.05.2010, but no action has been taken thereon for providing protection. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent No.3 wherein, it is inter alia stated that on receipt of the representations from the petitioner, a thorough enquiry was conducted into the threat perception and the enquiries revealed that at no point of time, the petitioner has lodged any representations on his facing threat from MIM leaders in Moghalpura Police Station and therefore, in the absence of threat perception, the petitioner was not provided with the security. Respondent No.3 has placed reliance on G.O.Rt.No.655 dated 13.03.1997 in contending that unless threat perception is found in existence, no personal security can be granted to an individual. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that though no formal reports were lodged in the Moghalpura Police Station, the petitioner is facing threat from MIM activists. In my opinion, existence of threat perception is a sine quo non for grant of Police protection to an individual as envisaged in G.O.Rt.No.655 dated 13.03.1997. Except the mere apprehension of the petitioner that there is a likelihood of MIM activists causing harm to him, no evidence is produced by him to prove this apprehension. Respondent No.3 has considered the representations of the petitioner in the light of the abovementioned G.O. and having been satisfied that no threat perception exists against the petitioner, he did not grant protection. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.19328 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 30th August, 2010 GHN