IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 27828 of 2008 Between: K.E. Prabhakar, S/o. Late K.E. Madanna, R/o.. Done, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Govt. of A.P. Rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Inspector of General of Police (Intelligence), Security Wing, Govt. of A.P. Hyderabad. 3 The Superintendent of Police, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 4 The Inspector of Police, Dhone Town, Kurnool District. .....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 Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondents in not providing two Gunman as a Security to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and opposed to Article 14, 19 and 21 of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to provide tow Gunman as Security to the petitioner as per the schemes and policy guidelines laid down by Government from time to time and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. VIJAYA BHASKAR MOOLA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 27828 of 2008 Oral order: The petitioner, who is an ex-MLA, has filed this writ petition to declare the inaction of the respondents in providing two Gunmen as security to the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner, when he was an MLA, was provided with security. When he was defeated in the 2004 general elections, the respondents withdrew the security provided to him. Later, on the representation made by him, the respondents provided him security, however, later from the month of August, 2008, the respondents withdrew the two gunmen security provided to him. Therefore, the petitioner made representation dated 01.11.2008 to the respondents, including the Hon’ble Home Minister, requesting them to provide police security, but no action thereon had been taken. Pursuant to the notice ordered by this Court, the Inspector of Police, Dhone, filed counter-affidavit denying the allegations, and justified the withdrawal of the security provided to him on the ground that there is no threat to the petitioner from the Maoists. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home for the respondents. Admittedly, the petitioner is an ex-MLA, and he claims that the place where he hails and resides is faction ridden, and is facing threat to his life, and therefore, the respondents are not justified in rejecting his request for providing security to him. Though the respondents in the counter have taken a stand that in view of the proceedings of the Security Review Committee dated 14.07.2009, the respondents withdrew the security provided to the petitioner on 27.07.2008, the fact remains, no reason whatsoever has been assigned in the counter, justifying the decision taken by the Security Review Committee, to withdraw the security cover provided to the petitioner, much less refusal to provide the security. Though the reasons which weighed with the Security Review Committee, for not providing police security to the petitioner are not placed before the Court, the fact remains, a reading of the threat perception report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool, in relation to the petitioner, copy of which was made available to the Court, would indicate that the Security Review Committee, did not apply its mind to the report of the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool. The Superintendent of Police, Kurnool, in his threat perception, stated that the petitioner was involved in three cases, and that all of them ended in his acquittal, and that there is faction rivalry in the constituency in which the petitioner resides and contested the election and as such, there is threat to his life, and reporting so, he recommended providing of 1 + 1 PSOs to the petitioner at state cost. As stated above, no material whatsoever has been placed before the Court to show whether the Security Review Committee, has considered the threat perception report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool, even though the letter dated 11.02.2009, addressed by the Additional Director General of Police, Intelligence, Hyderabad, to the Government Pleader for Home, states that the threat perception report, submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool, was considered by the Security Review Committee, in the light of the guidelines issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 655, dated 13.03.1997, and it felt that as there is no threat to the petitioner from Maoists and as he is not holding any public office, there is no need to provide him any security. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the respondents, particularly the Security Review Committee, was not justified in not providing security to the petitioner. Therefore, having regard to the recommendation made by the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool, in his threat perception report, the contents of which were noted above, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: The respondents are directed to provide 1 + 1 PSOs security to the petitioner at state cost, as recommended by the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool, forthwith. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 04th March, 2009 KSR Note: Issue CC tomorrow. (B/o) KSR