THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No :20546 of 2007 Date: 9.7.2010 Between: B. Venkata Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad and others. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri S.R.Ashok for Mr.Vemuri Bhasker Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 to 4 : A.G.P. for Home The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No :20546 of 2007 ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. I have heard Sri S.R. Ashok, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents. The petitioner is a practicing Advocate of High Court of Andhra Pradesh. He was appointed as counsel for Associated Cement Company. He was made in charge of suits filed against the said company and pending in the District Court, Guntur, apart from being entrusted with some matters pending in this Court and one case in Supreme Court. The petitioner averred that he was informed by the police on 27.11.2005 that he was a target of one Julakanti Sreenivas Reddy alias Moddu Sreenu, who was arrested after a bomb was exploded at Supraja Lodge, Chandanagar, Ranga Reddy District. According to the information said to have been given by the police to the petitioner, the said Julakanti Sreenivas Reddy was engaged by some persons against whom the petitioner was fighting litigation on behalf of the Associated Cement Company. Apprehending life threat, the petitioner made an application for providing security on 6.12.2005 to respondent No.1 and that he was accordingly provided security. At the end of three months period, a bill for Rs. 47,256/- was sent to him, which was cleared by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, in all, he paid Rs.97,256/- towards charges for providing security. Bills were being sent towards cost of providing security for subsequent periods. However, as respondent No.1 had withdrawn the security on the ground that the petitioner stopped paying the cost for security, petitioner has filed the present writ petition for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in withdrawing security to him on the ground of non-payment of the cost of providing such security as illegal and arbitrary. A counter affidavit is filed by respondent No.4, wherein he has inter alia stated that the petitioner is due in a sum of Rs. 2,61,584/- for the period from 9.2.2006 to 15.2.2007 and that it is not possible for the respondents to provide personal security to the petitioner free of cost. It is further stated that respondent No.1 would provide personal security to the petitioner on clearing off his outstanding dues. It is also stated that in pursuance of the interim direction of this Court, two personal security officers have been provided to the petitioner, that the accused in S.C. No.209 of 2006 was convicted by the Court of II Additional Judge and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine amount of Rs.5,000/-. At the hearing, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the threat perception to the petitioner is still continuing though the said Julakanti Sreenivas Reddy, who was allegedly engaged by the adversaries of the petitioner had died. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted that even assuming that the threat perception against the petitioner is continuing, it is not possible for the respondents to provide personal security to the petitioner without the petitioner paying the necessary charges, as prescribed by the State Government from time to time. As regards the existence of threat perception, from the averments made by the petitioner, it appears, Julakanti Sreenivas Reddy was the person, who was allegedly deployed by some of the persons against whom the petitioner had been appearing on behalf of the Associated Cement Company. Therefore, it cannot be said that with the death of the said Julakanti Sreenivas Reddy, the threat perception has ceased to exist. Therefore, unless the police reconsider the threat perception pleaded by the petitioner from this angle, it cannot be said that the threat perception against the petitioner does not exist. The petitioner is therefore, permitted to make a detailed representation in this regard and respondent No.1 is directed to reconsider the threat perception against the petitioner afresh. As regards continuance of security to the petitioner, this Court by order dated 28.9.2007 directed the respondents to continue the personal security subject to the petitioner depositing Rs.20,000/-. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner is paying a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month in pursuance of this direction. The respondents are directed to continue the personal security to the petitioner for a period of three months subject to the petitioner continuing to pay Rs.20,000/- per month and clearing all the arrears within the said period. On receipt of representation from the petitioner, respondent No.1 shall re-examine the threat perception and pass appropriate orders within the said period of three months. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP Nos. 26572 and 26573 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief are disposed of as infructuous. _________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J DATE: 9th July, 2010 pnb