IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17481 of 2007 Between: B.N. Brahmananda Reddy … Petitioner And The Superintendent of Police, Kadapa District & another. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P. Nagendra REddy Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Home The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17481 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in withdrawing the security provided to the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel representing the Government Pleader for Home The petitioner, who is a Sarpanch of Bidinamcherla village, pleaded in his affidavit that his father and brother were brutally murdered and that his enemies sought to kill him by throwing bombs at him in the year 2002. He has also narrated an incident allegedly taken place on 17.06.2007, wherein an attempt was made to kill him by his adversaries. He further stated that on his representation made to the respondents, the Security Review Committee, after assessing the threat perception, recommended for providing a gunman to the petitioner. Accordingly, respondent No.2 vide his proceedings dated 09.06.2006 directed respondent No.1 to provide 2 PCOs (1 person at a time) at State cost. The security provided to the petitioner was, however, withdrawn in November 2006. Questioning this action of the respondents, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. A counter affidavit is filed by the Superintendent of Police, Kadapa District, respondent No.1, wherein it is stated that the petitioner was involved in as many as 14 crimes enumerated therein of which while he was acquitted in majority cases, some cases are shown to be pending. The petitioner is also shown to have been convicted in one of the crimes. It is averred in the counter affidavit that in pursuance of the representation made by the petitioner, respondent No.1 submitted a threat perception report dated 12.04.2006 to the Security Review Committee, wherein he did not recommend for providing security/gunmen to the petitioner since he was involved in several criminal cases, that on the letter addressed by the Leader of the Opposition to the Hon’ble Chief Minister on 25.03.2006, the Security Review Committee in its meeting held on 17/18.04.2006 directed the DIG/IG, Security to fix up a date by issuing message to respondent No.1 and Deputy Superintendent of Police (Intelligence), Kadapa to convene a meeting to discuss the points raised by the Leader of the Opposition and that during the meeting of the said committee comprising of Additional Director General of Police, Intelligence, IGP Security, the respondents and other officers, a decision was taken on 15.05.2006 to provide security to 4 persons including the petitioner. It is further stated that accordingly the petitioner was provided security temporarily during the local body elections in accordance with the guidelines framed under G.O.Rt.No.655, dated 13.03.1997 and that he is not entitled for regular security under the said G.O. As evident from the counter affidavit, the State Government issued G.O.Rt.No.655, dated 13.03.1997, wherein the guidelines for providing personal security to various categories of persons have been framed. The said G.O. provides that whenever representations are made alleging threat to one’s life, the same shall be considered by the unit officer in the first instance and if the unit officer rejects the request for providing security, the aggrieved person can approach the higher functionaries of police for review and finally he can approach the Stage Government represented by the Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department for a decision. As noted, respondent No.1 in his counter affidavit stated that in his report submitted to the Security Review Committee, he did not recommend the petitioner’s case for providing personal security in view of his criminal record. Clause (C)(6) of the said G.O., deals with persons with criminal background. According to this clause, a person having criminal background should not be given security except when the criminal case is closed or acquitted against him. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.1 the petitioner is shown to have been acquitted in many criminal cases. Inasmuch as the petitioner’s case was considered in the year 2006 and substantial time had elapsed since then, I am of the opinion that it would be appropriate if the petitioner is permitted to make a fresh application to respondent No.1 with relevant details in support of his apprehension of threat to his life. If such an application is made, respondent No.1 shall consider the same afresh strictly in accordance with the guidelines contained in G.O.Rt.No.655, dated 13.03.1997, take appropriate decision and communicate the same to the petitioner within two months from the date of petitioner making such an application. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by the decision taken by respondent No.1, he is entitled to approach the higher authorities, as envisaged in G.O.Rt.No.655. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.22380 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 23.06.2010. ES