THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 24496 of 2008 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus to declare the action of respondents in not providing security by appointing gunmen in spite of several representations made by the petitioner though there is serious life threat to his life as well as to his property as arbitrary and illegal. There is no necessity of going into all the details. The 5th respondent - Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City filed a detailed counter affidavit saying that the petitioner filed an application before him for providing personal security officer from police department, claiming that he is having serious threat to his life as well as property. His request was taken into consideration and assessment of threat, if any, was taken by the City Special Branch. After thorough enquiry it was found that there is no threat to the petitioner from any other individual or group except their own brothers and their family members. It was further revealed that it is a mere business sharing dispute among brothers and it is not obligatory on the part of the Government to provide security to each individual who has threat from his own family members due to family/property/business disputes. There is shortage of manpower and police department is over burdened with other important issues in the background of threat of terrorism in the city. The resources of the State need to be judicially deployed based on threat perceptions only. The availability of trained personnel is inadequate and the deployment is being made depending upon the level of threat perception of the targets. Such resources cannot be distributed to protect the interest of people in business/property rivalry merely on request. The provision of personal security officer is not an automatic obligation on the part of police. Therefore, the request of the petitioner cannot be conceded to, in the absence of threat to him. petitioner is free to engage private security personnel, if he so chooses, instead of insisting on provision of security from police department, which would set a wrong precedent and lead to such demand from other undeserving private persons, defeating the very objective and norms set for this purpose. From the above, it appears that there are some business sharing disputes among the brothers and they are family disputes. Therefore and in the light of the averments made in the counter affidavit, the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: -2010. MVB.