IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 6761 of 2008 Between: Konakalla Jagannadha Rao @ Bullaiah S/o. Ganapathy Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Secretary. 2 The Superintendent of Police, Krishna District at Machilipatnam. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the respondents in withdrawing the security provided to the petitioner in C.No. 726/SB-XI/05 dt. 8-8-2005 as illegal arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to restore security to the petitioner and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.V.RAMANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 6761 of 2008 Oral Order: The writ petition is ﬁled for a declaration that the action of the respondents in withdrawing the security provided to the petitioner on 08-08-2005 is illegal, arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to restore security to the petitioner. On the petitioner’s own admission, in crime No.63 of 1983 of Chilakalapudi Police Station, the petitioner was convicted for an oﬀence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment but was released on 18- 08-1990 on the basis of a Presidential exercise of prerogative. As per the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by the 2nd respondent the petitioner was also involved in crime Nos.116 of 1978 and 78 of 1981 both of Chilakalapudi Police Station for certain oﬀences including under Section 302 IPC. Of course, he was acquitted in respect of those cases. However notwithstanding the above criminal record, the petitioner was provided with one personal security officer from 08-08-2005. The 2nd respondent’s counter further states that in a subsequent review of the threat perception against the petitioner, it was found that there is no threat of security and the security review committee for the ﬁrst half of the year in the report dated 14-03-2007 and the second half of the year by the report dated 05-01-2008 found no threat of security to the petitioner and accordingly security was withdrawn on 01-03-2008. The counter further states that as per the guidelines in G.O.Rt.No.655 Home (SC-H) Department dated 13-03- 1997 persons with criminal background are not to be provided security. The counter also avers that the petitioner has a criminal background and is not entitled to security in view of the guidelines issued and also for the reason that there is no threat to him at present from any corner. The petitioner has submitted an aﬃdavit in rebuttal to the averments in the counter aﬃdavit on 15- 07-2008. He reiterates that there is a threat to his life; there was an attack on him on 20-03-2004; that a criminal case has been registered on the said incident and after investigation the police have also ﬁled a charge sheet and that he is an important witness in the said criminal case and if he attempts to tender evidence in that case he apprehends danger to his life. In the reply the petitioner seeks security till the disposal of the SC.No. 339 of 2007 before the Special Mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam. From the averments above, the petitioner has criminal background; had been convicted for a capital oﬀence; has no extant threat perception and therefore is not entitled to personal security. There are no merits in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 22-08-2008 pvks