HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 2886 OF 2011 . DATED 12th August, 2011. BETWEEN G. Suryanarayana …Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, at Secretariat, Hyderabad and ors. ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 2886 of 2011 ORDER: The action of the respondents in not providing 2+2 (PSOs) gunmen as security to the petitioner, on payment basis as per G.O.Rt.No. 655, dated 13.3.1997 is challenged in the instant Writ Petition. The petitioner states that he is a permanent resident of Ananthapur and Dharmavaram towns in Ananthapur District. He is a Class I contractor and engaged in the quarry business in the surrounding areas of Annathapur. He states that presently he is In-charge of Telugu Desam Party in Dharmavaram Assembly Constituency and General Secretary of District Telugu Desam Party. He contested in the General Elections held in 2009 as an independent candidate from Dharmavaram Assembly Constituency and was defeated by his rival of Congress party. It is the case of the petitioner that earlier the Government provided gunmen to him at his own cost from 1994 to 2007 and thereafter the third respondent withdrew the gunmen without any valid reason. It is his further case that after withdrawal of the gunmen by the Government, he had engaged private armed guards which was also not permitted by the third respondent. Questioning the same, he approached the State Human Rights Commission, Hyderabad by filing a petition being HRC.No. 5294 of 2009, which was disposed of by order dated 15.4.2010 directing the respondent authorities not to disturb the private security which has been engaged by him. It is his further case that despite the said orders of the State Human Rights Commission, Hyderabad, the Police Department withdrew the private security guards engaged by the petitioner on the premise that in the entire state the police have withdrew the private security engaged by the petitioner alike. It is stated that earlier his father as well as some of his close associates and followers in Dharmavaram Constituency were murdered by his opponents. It is further stated that there is real threat perception to his life and liberty and the third respondent without any notice and without reviewing threat perception, has simply withdrawn the security based on the pressures brought on him by the members of the ruling party. He named some persons who are said to be rowdy sheeters against whom criminal cases are pending have been provided gunmen by the government. Though he made personal requests to the third respondent on 28th and 29th of January, 2011 and brought to his notice the orders passed by the State Human Rights Commission, till date no action had been taken for providing gunmen in terms of G.O.Rt.No. 655, dated 13.3.1997 which was issued by the Government formulating guidelines regarding provision of security/personal security officers to private persons. Third respondent filed counter affidavit denying the averments of the petitioner made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. He admitted in the counter affidavit that the petitioner’s father was murdered by the factionists and obtaining of the orders dated 12.4.2010 from the State Human Rights Commission. In the Counter affidavit, he stated that a rowdy sheet, bearing No. 27 is being continued on the rolls of Bathalapalli Police Station since 2006 and the same is being renewed from time to time and is extended to 31.12.2011. He further stated that the petitioner is the accused in the following cases and facing trial. 1. Cr.No.69/2009 under Section 188 IPC and Section 133 of R.P.Act of Dharmavaram Town Police Station. ( Case is pending trial vide CC.No. 170 of 2009) 2. Cr.No. 71/2009 under Section under Section 188 IPC and Section 133 of R.P. Act of Dharmavaram Town Police Station. (Case is pending trial vide CC.No. 172 of 2009). 3. Cr.No. 221/07 under Sections 447, 427, 387, 506 r/w.34 IPC of Ananthapur I town Police Station. (Case is pending trial vide CC.No. 594/09). 4. Cr.No. 75 of 2009 under Sections 447, 341, 506, 307 r/w 34 IPC of Mudigubba Police Station. (Case is pending trial vide PRC.No. 49/2010). Apart from the above, the petitioner is also accused in the following cases, some of which ended in acquittal and remaining are pending adjudication. 1. Cr.No. 69/93 under Sections 147, 148, 307, 302 and 202 r/w 149 IPC of Bathalapalli Police Station. ( ended in acquittal vide SC.No.98/99, dt. 5.10.1999 by the learned Sessions Judge, Ananthapur). 2. Cr.No.79/93 under Sections 352, 307 r/w 34 IPC, Sec. 25 (1B)(a) IA Act of Bathalapalli PS (Case ended in acquittal vide SC.No. 512 of 1998 dated 22.12.1999 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Ananthapur). 3. Cr.No.80/93 under Sections 20, 25 (1B)(a) I.A. Act on the file of the Bathalapalli Police Station. (A.1 was acquitted vide CC.No. 67 of 1999). 4. C r.N o . 25/2000 under Sections 365, 342 IPC of Bathalapalli Police Station. (Cases ended in acquittal on 6.10.2003). 5. Cr.No. 19/2000 under Section 420 IPC of Itikalapalli Police Station. (Cases ended in acquittal on 29.11.2005) 6. Cr.No.221/2007 under Section 447, 427, 387, 506 r/w 149 IPC of Ananthapur I town Police Station (Case is PT vide CC.No.94 of 2008). 7. Cr.No.227/07 under Section 420, 341, 506 IPC r/w 34 IPC of Ananthapur I town Police Station ( Case was referred as MF). 8. Cr.No. 58/2009 under Section 107 Cr.PC of Bathalapalli Police Station. 9. Cr.No.69 of 2009 under Section 188 IPC and Sec. 133 RP Act of Dharmavaram town Police Station (Case is PT pending vide CC.No.170 of 2009). 10. Cr.No. 71/2009 under Section 188 IPC and Sec.133 RP Act of Dharmavaram town Police Station (Case is PT pending vide CC.No. 172/09.) 11. Cr.No.75/09 under Section 447, 341, 506, 307 r/w 34 IPC of Mudigubba Police Station ( Case is PT pending vide PRC.No. 49 of 2010). It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was provided security from 1994 to 2007 and the same was withdrawn as there is no imminent threat perception to his life and liberty. It is further stated that pursuant to the interim order granted by this Court, the petitioner is provided 1 + 1 personal security officers on payment basis. However, it is stated that as per the guidelines issued in G.O.Rt.No.655 dated 13.3.1997, a person having criminal background should not be given security and therefore, as the petitioner is facing trial in four criminal cases and rowdy sheet is being continued against him, he is not entitled to personal security. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home for the respondents. Perused the case file thoroughly. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the averments made in the writ affidavit stated that there is imminent threat perception to the life and liberty of the petitioner from his political rivalries and therefore appropriate directions be given to the respondents to provide security to the petitioner forthwith. The learned Government Pleader for the Home appearing for the State submitted that pursuant to the interim order granted by this Court 1+1 gunmen security is provided to the petitioner. He also reiterated the counter averments and prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in Writ Petition No. 10299 of 2011, dated 25.4.2011, Writ Petition No. 18738 of 2007, dated 22.06.2010 and Writ Petition No. 9141 of 2011, dated 29.4.2011. On several occasions, this Court had to deal with cases of identical subject matter of providing security to the private persons etc. The philosophy of the State should be to maintain law and order at a macro level rather than concentrating on safety of certain individuals in the society. This Court while disposing of Writ Petition Nos.291 of 1995, 10432 and 12172 of 1996 dated 14.10.1996 and 31.10.1996 issued certain instructions and guidelines for the provision of personal security officers to constitutional and statutory functionaries and to private persons. Pursuant thereto, the Government after due consideration of the proposal of the then Director General and Inspector General of Police issued G.O.Rt.No.655 dated 13.03.1997 laying down guidelines for providing security to private persons. By way of the said G.O., persons were divided into 6 categories. The petitioner falls under the category of "private persons". Clause-C of the G.O. enumerated the general guidelines for providing security and it is envisaged therein that in case of a private person, individual security on threat perception can be provided only on advance payment basis subject to the availability of manpower with the Unit Officer concerned. Sub-clauses (6) and (7) of Clause-C of the said G.O. are apposite: "a person having criminal background should not be given security except when the criminal case is closed or acquitted against him. Further, in case there is a genuine threat from naxalites of PWG or in case he is holding public office, then specific permission from IGP Intelligence, who is the Nodal authority should be taken before providing him. In respect of factional groups, security should not be given to the affected parties since provision of security to one faction and ignoring requests of other faction is not proper and wherever it is felt necessary to give security to such persons, the reasons for doing so shall be recorded by the competent authority." (Emphasis supplied) In fact this Court in similar circumstances and identical matters, held that the persons with criminal background are not entitled to be provided with security. From the facts borne out by the record, it is clear that the petitioner is belonging to a faction group in the area and was involved in several criminal cases stated supra. The guidelines contained in the abovementioned G.O. clearly envisage that persons with criminal background and those, who are part of factional groups, are generally not entitled to personal security. The exceptions carved out under the said G.O. are that if criminal cases were closed resulting in the acquittal of the person or when there is a genuine threat from the naxalites, then the request for security can be considered and the same would be provided to such persons by recording reasons for doing so by the respondent authority. In the threat perception report submitted by the Superintendent of Police (Administration), Ananthapur, it is stated that the petitioner is involved in number of criminal cases including land grabbing and extortion; that earlier cases are registered against him for threatening farmers and civilians by misusing gunmen and hence as per the guideline No. 6 of G.O.Rt.No. 655 dated 13.3.1997, the petitioner is not entitled to seek security. Further, in the column 9 of the said report, against the query as to whether preventive and legal steps have been taken to deter up individual or group from having the threatened person, it is mentioned that a close watch has been kept near the residence and night and day beats are being served besides frequent conduct of cordon and search operation in his residential locality with the help of district special party. From a bare perusal of the counter and threat perception report filed by the respondent authorities, it is found that the petitioner is not having any threat perception as alleged by him to his life and liberty from any nook and corner and from any class of people. In as much as there was a threat perception from 1997 to 2007, which necessitated the State to provide personal security to the petitioner, and on that count alone, he cannot seek continuance of the same without due regard to the changed circumstances. This Court in the case of Katasani Rami Reddy Vs. Govt. of AP, (1998 Crl.L.J. 3897), while dealing with a similar and identical issue, held as under: “whether security is to be provided to the individual or not by the State is dependent upon the threat perception with regard to that individual, and what is the amount of threat and whether the threat is real or imaginary, and in case there is threat, what is the degree of the threat to an individual's life, cannot be considered either by this Court or by any other agency other than the police force itself. Police is the competent authority and it is equipped with facilities like intelligence services to come to a conclusion about threat perception of an individual. Therefore, whenever an application is made before a District Superintendent of Police by an individual for providing personal security to him, while disposing of such an application the District Superintendent of Police should invariably record his finding with regard to the threat perception. Once such a finding is recorded, it will be open for such an individual to agitate the matter further, if the concerned Superintendent of Police does not come to correct finding with regard to threat perception. This will also enable the District Superintendent of Police to decide as to how much personal security is needed by an individual. Otherwise, unless he knows the level of the threat he cannot be able to decide the matter. It is also well known that, some times threat to one's life can remain life long depending upon the circumstances and the incidents which are relatable with respect to such an individual, but some times threat to one's life may be temporary and in such a case continuous security may not be needed. Therefore, 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” As stated supra, any law enforcing agency is primarily meant for ensuring rule of law and law & order for the welfare of the public at large. Where there is a conflict between social needs and individual needs, the former gets priority. In the case on hand, as the petitioner is a faction leader and is involved in numerous criminal cases, therefore, the respondent authorities after reviewing the threat perception decided not to continue the security earlier provided to the petitioner any longer. However, pursuant to the interim order of this Court, they have provided 1+1 gunmen. Pertinent to note, though Article 21 of the Constitution of India ordains that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law, no person can claim as of right that the State should provide him with personal security to ensure that his life is protected. In that view of the matter and for the foregoing discussion, I do not see any merit in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. In sequel thereto, the interim order granted by this Court shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------------ -- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 12th August, 2011. Msnro