IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8480 of 2008 Between: Patnam Narender Reddy S/o.Late Malla Reddy R/o.Shabad Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, at Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Inspector General of Police, (Intelligence), O/o Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad 3 The Superintendent of Police, Hqrs at Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR. N.RANGA REDDY FOR MR.K.RAGHUVEER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not providing personal security to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to forthwith consider his representation, dated 24.02.2007. Heard Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri K.Raghuveer Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. In his affidavit, the petitioner narrated the political background of himself and his family members and apprehended serious threat to his life from his political rivals. He claimed that he made several representations and the latest one being representation, dated 24.02.2007, to respondent No.3. In my considered opinion, before filing this writ petition, the petitioner ought to have approached respondent No.3 with a request to provide security since, even on his own showing, the last representation was made about 14 months back. Such a representation would have made respondent No.3 to assess the threat perception, if any, existing as at present. On this ground, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to file a fresh representation before respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of such representation from the petitioner, shall assess the threat perception against the petitioner. In the event respondent No.3 finds that there is no such threat perception, he shall pass an order with detailed reasons and communicate the same to the petitioner. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.11228 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 18th APRIL, 2008 kvni