IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 8531 of 2004 Between: K.M.Shakeel Safi, S/o K.M.Safiulla, R/o. Ramnagar, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District. 2 Superintendent of Police, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in withdrawing the security provided to the petitioner by withdrawing the gun men and in not taking effective steps for protecting life of the petitioner as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to take all necessary and effective steps for safeguarding the life and Constitutional rights of the petitioner Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.NIRANJAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER:- Heard both the learned counsel and at their request, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. Petitioner herein filed this writ petition against the withdrawal of security provided and not taking any steps to protect his life. The case of the petitioner is that in view of blasting of his farm-house in January, 2004 and having threat perception, respondents provided gun men. However, later the respondents withdrawn the said gun men. Hence this writ petition. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that it is only due to death perception, security was provided and not at this point of time, there is threat to the petitioner from any quarter. Therefore, the security has been withdrawn and further no prior notice need be issued to the petitioner for withdrawal of the security. Considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel and on perusal of the material on record, it is seen that the aspect of threat perception is a matter of subjective satisfaction of the respondents, which cannot be gone into by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 31—08—2004. Stv/- To 1 Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District. 2 Superintendent of Police, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District. 3 2CCs to the Government Pleader for Home, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. (OUT) 4 2CD copies