HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 10299 OF 2011 . DATED 25th April, 2011. BETWEEN Gangula Subhash Reddy …Petitioner And The State of AP, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and ors ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 10299 of 2011 ORDER: Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the third respondent in rejecting his application for providing two gunmen as security to him. Briefly the facts of the case are that, the petitioner claims to be the resident of Erragudidinne village in Kurnool District. It is stated that he belongs to a reputed political family in that area. It has been averred that he is an active Congress party member and being involved in public life, received numerous threats from different persons, as a result of which, he was granted security by way of two gunmen way back in the year 1996 and the same was continued till the withdrawal in the month of March, 2011. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that as there are serious threats to the life and liberty of the petitioner from various extremists, withdrawal of the security is illegal. He prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents to continue the security. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is a law abiding citizen. Counter has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein it has been averred that the petitioner is involved in the following criminal cases. 1.Cr. No.2/82, u/s. 302 r/w.34 IPC of Sirvel PS. (ended in acquittal) 2. Cr.No.39/82 u/secs. 107 Cr.P.C. of Allagadda PS. (bound over for a period of six months) 3. Cr.No.36/83, u/Sec.25(i)(b) of Arms Act of Allagadda PS. (ended in acquittal) 4. Cr.No.29/84 u/sec. 5 of E.S. Act of Sirvel PS. (ended in acquittal) 5. Cr.No. 10/85 u/secs.147,148,324,435, 427, 307 IPC and Sec. 3 and 5 of ES Act. 6. Cr.No. 84/85, u/Secs. 447, 427 IPC and Secs. 3 and 5 of E.S.Act of Sirvel PS. ( ended in acquittal) 7. Cr.No.12/87 u/Secs. 147,148,324,435,427,307 IPC and Secs. 3 and 5 ES of Sirvel PS. (ended in acquittal) 8. Cr.No.32/87 u/Sec. 107 Cr.P.C. of Sirvel PS (bound over for a period of six months) 9. Cr.No.73/88 u/Secs. 147, 148, 307 r/w 149 IPC and Secs. 3 and 5 of ES. Act of Allagadda town PS. (ended in acquittal) 10. Cr.No. 4/89 u/Sec. 25(i)(b)(a) Arms Act of Rudravaram PS (ended in acquittal) 11. Cr.No.151/91, u/sec. 147, 148, 332, 307 r/w 149 IPC of Nandyal I town PS (ended in acquittal). 12. Cr.No. 71/98 u/Secs. 307, 506 r/w. 34 IPC of Gospadu PS (ended in acquittal). From the counter affidavit it is axiomatic that though all the above mentioned cases ended in acquittal, but, the petitioner is a faction leader and is involved in faction rivalries in the district. It has been further averred that the case of the petitioner has been considered by the Security Review Committee comprising of Joint Director, SIB, Deputy Director, SIB, DIG (Security), DIG (Intelligence), Joint Secretary (protocol) and IGP (Grey hounds) as members and Inspector General of Police (Intelligence) as Nodal Authority/convener, after perusing the latest threat perception report obtained from the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool district and the guidelines issued in G.O.Rt.No. 655, dated 13.3.1997 and decided to withdraw the security provided to the petitioner. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it is clear that any police force or any law enforcing agency is primarily meant for ensuring rule of law and law & order for the welfare of the public at large. Where there is a conflict between social needs and individual needs, the former gets priority. In the present case, as the petitioner is a faction leader and is involved in numerous criminal cases, therefore, Security Review Committed decided not to continue the security provided to the petitioner any longer. In view of the above, I find no irregularity in the decision of the Security Review Committee for withdrawal of the security provided to the petitioner. The Writ Petition is therefore liable to be dismissed. However it is made clear that in case, there is any fresh threat perception, it is open for the petitioner to make a fresh representation. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already made a representation on 7.4.2011 to the Honourable Home Minister, Government of Andhra Pradesh, which has already been forwarded to the second respondent. In case, the respondents come to a conclusion that the petitioner has threat perception, then the case of the petitioner be considered for providing security and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. -------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 25th April, 2011. Msnro