IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND TEN WRIT PETITION No.9446 OF 2010 Between: Dr.Chintala Yadagiri. … Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, reptd., by its Principal Secretary-Home, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri C.Raghu. Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Home. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in withdrawing 2+2 security of the petitioner, as illegal and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. I have heard Sri C.Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, representing the respondents. The petitioner claims to be the President of All India Budaga Jangam Welfare Association and an active member of a political party. He was granted personal security in the year 2008. As the said security was discontinued, he approached the respondents. In August, 2009 security was restored to him with 2+2 gunmen. In March, 2010, the said security has been withdrawn to him. According to the petitioner, he is inimical to one Saidulu, who has got links with Underworld Mafia from Mumbai. The petitioner narrated an incident stated to have taken place on 28-3-2010 involving certain unknown persons attacking him, destroying his car and forcibly taking away the gold ornaments. The petitioner further stated that on a complaint given by him, a case in Crime No.37 of 2010 was registered in Pappannapet Police Station, Medak district. The petitioner is apprehending further attacks on his life and property. Though the petitioner claimed to have made a representation to the respondents, the details thereof have not been given in the Writ Petition nor a copy of the representation has been filed. The State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.655, Home (SC.B) Department, dated 13-3-1997, lying down guidelines for extending personal security to different categories of persons. Under the said G.O., if the Police are satisfied on the existence of threat perception, subject to the person falling in one or other categories mentioned in the said GO., he is entitled to protection on his complying with the conditions mentioned therein. The fact that the petitioner was provided with security earlier shows that at the relevant point of time threat perception existed. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the respondents to review the threat perception against the petitioner before withdrawing the security. As no material is available with the Court to know whether such a review has been undertaken or not, respondent No.2 is directed to review the petitioner’s case to assess the threat perception. If, on the basis of the material available, respondent No.2 is satisfied that such a threat perception exists, he shall restore security to the petitioner. The decision of respondent No.2 shall be communicated to the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:26-4-2010 MNR