IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA WRIT PETITION NO : 5657 of 2005 Between: Mareddi Ravindranath Reddy, S/o. Krishna Reddy , R/o. Kasanur Village , Simhadripuram Mandal, Kadapah District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent Of Police, Kadapah, Kadapah District. 2 The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 3 The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ , order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the order Dated 09-03-2005 passed by the 1st Respondent rejecting the request made by the petitioner to provide Armed Police personnel as security as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to provide Armed police personnel as security to the petitioner on par with Sri. Mallikarjun Reddy of Kamapuram constituency , Sri. V. Muni Reddy of Vempally Village , Pulivendula constituency, Sri. Ravikanth Reddy of Pulivendula constituency, Sri. Ramalingaiah shetty of Vempally Village of Pulivendula constituency and Sri . Ravindranath Reddy of Kasanur village who were provide ed with Armed police personnel as security and to pass such other necessary order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: Heard both sides. Perused the material placed before me. The petitioner seeks a declaration that the order dated 9-3-2005 passed by the first respondent rejecting his request to provide armed police personnel as security to him as illegal and arbitrary and consequently seeks a direction to the respondents to provide armed police personnel as security to him, on par with others. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the enemies of the petitioner were provided with armed security whereas the petitioner is not. At the outset, it should be noticed that the first respondent provided security by armed police personnel only to the enemies of the petitioner, but not provided arms. The petitioner, being a citizen, also deserves protection if there is any threat to his life. The petitioner states that he perceives threat from the hands of his enemies. The truth or otherwise of it cannot be assessed by this Court. However, this Court recognizes that it is the right of every citizen to live freely without any fear. Even if there is any threat perception from enemies, the life of an individual should be protected by the responsible agency. There is absolutely no doubt in this regard. However, it is to be seen that there are certain guidelines enumerated in G.O. RT No. 655 Home (SC. B) Department, dated 13-3-1997, wherein it was categorically held that a person who has criminal background shall not be provided with any security. In the counter affidavit it was stated that as per the enquiry report, it is revealed that ill feelings exist among the factions, further, that the petitioner has been expressing threat to his life. As already pointed out, the life of the citizen shall have to be protected by all means, even though he is an accused, but in the manner prescribed under law. The Government had issued certain guidelines in the above said G.O. and it cannot be said that the said guidelines can be given a go-bye. However, if necessary, relaxation can be made by the Government on the recommendations of the competent authority and basing on the gravity of threat perception, which can be assessed only by the first respondent. Accordingly, the first respondent is directed to conduct an enquiry afresh and give detailed reasons either to accord security to the petitioner or not. This shall not be understood as if the petitioner is not entitled to any security from the police, since, as already pointed and of course at the cost of repetition, the petitioner is entitled to have security within the framework of the law, as and when required. However, the exercise of conducting such enquiry shall be completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. No costs. --------------------- 07-04-2005 Note: Issue CC in one day B/0 KVSN To 1 The Superintendent Of Police, Kadapah, Kadapah District. 2 The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 3 The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 4 Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court buildings, Hydeabad. 5 Two CD copies.