IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12031 of 2009 Between: G. Devanand S/o. G. Gangappa R/o. Door No. 1-1551, Bypass Road, Kadiri Town, Ananthapur Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director General of Police Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad. 2 The Superintendent of Police Anantapur Anantapur District. 3 The Deputy Superintendent of Police Kadiri Range Kadiri, Anantapur District. 4 Sri N. Sainath Kadiri Range Kadiri, Anantapur District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.PRASADA RAO Counsel for the Respondents:AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: The grievance in short of the petitioner in this writ petition is that despite his facing serious threat to his life from his adversaries including respondent No.3, who was impleaded as respondent No.4 in his personal capacity, respondent No.2 has not been considering his request for granting police protection. Though serious allegations were made against respondent No.4, no material is produced by the petitioner in support thereof. Therefore, it is not possible for this Court to give a conclusive finding on these allegations. The State Government by G.O.Ms.No.655, dated 13.03.1997 laid down guidelines for providing personal security to various categories of persons, who are facing life threat. The entitlement of the petitioner to the provision of police security depends upon the threat perception. No doubt, the petitioner has brought out certain events in support of his plea of existence of threat perception. However, it is for respondent No.2 to examine the claim of the petitioner and decide whether threat perception exists in the case of the petitioner. Therefore, without going into the merits of the pleas raised by the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.2 to consider representation, dated 21.02.2009 of the petitioner objectively after calling for necessary reports from the police officials, decide whether the petitioner is facing life threat, pass a detailed order within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. The petitioner is permitted to file relevant material in support of his allegations against respondent No.4, before respondent No.2 within a period of two (2) weeks from today. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.15500 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 19th JUNE, 2009. kvni