1
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU
WRIT PETITION No.1136 of 2020
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief:
"...to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the impugned Notice issued by the 3rd respondent, dt.28.11.2019 bearing C.No.39/RI-DSW/KDP/2019 withdrawing the security provided to the petitioners as per the orders of the 2nd respondent dt.27.11.2019 bearing ID No.5371/SW-2/AP/2016-19, without referring to the matter to the review committee and without any recommendations for extension of the withdrawal of the security protection in terms of the orders passed din W.P.No.7822 of 2019 dt.15.07.2019, inspite of the continuous threat perception, as being illegal, arbitrary, unilateral, biased, discriminatory and unconstitutional and consequently set aside the same, and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
This Court has heard Sri J.Janaki Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C. Sumon, learned counsel appearing for the Advocate General for the respondents.
The petitioner before this Court is a leader, belonging to a leading political party. He has been given a post by his party in Pulivendula of Kadapa District. It is his contention that in view of his activities in the said District the ruling party leaders have hatched a plan to eliminate him. His house was also set on fire and destroyed in October, 2005. Thereafter, he requested the police protection. He was initially provided with gunman, which was being periodically extended. Once the 2 same was withdrawn he filed W.P.No.18029 of 2006, in which an interim order was also granted. Ultimately, the interim order was also made absolute and the protection continued. Thereafter in August, 2014, the security review committee decided to withdraw the gunman given to him. He questioned the same by a further writ petition. In June, 2019 another notice was issued by the 3rd respondent withdrawing the security and that the petitioner filed W.P.No.7822 of 2019, and the learned single Judge directed the respondents to give him security for a period of three months and at the end of said period review committee was directed to take stock of all the facts and circumstances to come to a conclusion about the threat perception to the petitioner. This period also expired and the impugned notice was given on 28.11.2019 withdrawing the security / gunman given to the petitioner. Questioning the same the present writ petition is filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argues the matter at length and detailed all these facts. In addition, he also submits that the petitioner is willing to pay for the security if provided and is not demanding payment for security at the State's cost. Learned counsel also points out that certain other leaders in the same constituency, who are not holding public offices are being given security while despite the imminent threat the petitioner is being deprived of the security. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the earlier judgments passed by the learned single judges, wherein the petitioner's case was 3 also considered and orders were passed in his favour. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the threat perception review was not correctly done and that there is an imminent threat to the petitioner. Therefore, he prays for an order.
In response to this, Sri Sumon argued the matter at length. He relied upon the counter affidavit filed along with various cases referred to. It is also submitted that the petitioner is an accused in number of cases and that as he is not holding any political post and is merely a private person, security cannot be provided to him. Learned counsel relies upon on the large volume of case law that he has filed to argue that the petitioner's case does not come within the purview of G.O.Rt.No.655, dated 13.03.1997, which are the guidelines that to be followed. He points out that this G.O. was issued pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Court in G.subas Reddy v State of A.P. and Ors., 1 case. Learned counsel submits that providing security to a private person can only be based on a threat perception. In the case on hand, he submits that there is no threat per se to the petitioner. He also points out that stipulated procedure has not been followed in terms of G.O.Rt.No.655, dated 13.03.1997, by the petitioner to claim police protection. According to learned counsel a step by step procedure should be followed before the petitioner can claim protection. Relying upon the case law he submits that the 1 (1996) 4 ALT 985 (DB) 4 petitioner is not entitled to a mandamus. Additional documents were also filed by the learned counsel for the respondent to show that on 19.11.2019 the threat perception was reviewed in line with the order of the learned single Judge. Thereafter, on 03.02.2020 also the threat perception was reviewed. In the petitioner's case the learned counsel argues that the concerned authorities who have the expertise did not find a potential threat either in November, 2019 or in February, 2020. Therefore, learned counsel submits that this is not a case in which an order should be granted.
This Court is often faced with such cases. On more than one occasion this Court had an opportunity to hear similar submissions. The law on the subject is also sufficiently clear and established. Learned single Judges of this Court have held that threat perception is a dynamic concept that is ever changing. There cannot be any hard and fast rule for determining the threat perception. The next point that has been settled by the learned judges of this court in various decisions is that this this court does not have expertise to determine the threat perception. The police / security agency has the expertise and the experience to determine the actual threat perception. The police / security agency has the expertise and the experience to determine the actual threat perception to a person. However, once a decision is taken; the same can be questioned like any other decisions of the State on the settled principles of law. The petitioner will have to 5 prove that while seeking relief under Article 226 that the decision is vitiated by mala fides that it did not consider the actual facts or that it considered incorrect facts etc. This is again a matter of adequate pleadings and some proof, to justify that the decision making process is vitiated.
If the present petition is examined against the backdrop on large amount of law that is relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent is clear that the petitioner has not made out a case to hold that the decision taken by the respondents vis a vis his threat perception is incorrect. In line with the orders passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.7822 of 2019 at the end of three months a review meeting was conducted. This is borne out by the proceedings dated 19.11.2019. The Superintendent of Police has given a recommendation that there is no threat to the petitioner. therefore, 1+1 PSOs were withdrawn. This was followed by a subsequent threat perception report of February, 2020 that is within a further period of two months. In this case also it is clearly written by the Superintendent of Police that petitioner is not facing any threat. In the light of these two categorical assertions made by the respondent-State the petitioner had a duty to point out that these two reports were incorrect and then invite a finding. Except stating that the petitioner is not being allowed to conduct meetings and that false cases are being foisted against him whenever he attempt to hold a meeting, no data is provided to enable this Court to come to a conclusion 6 that the threat perception reports are incorrect and that the threat still persists for the petitioner. In W.P.No.7871 of 2019 after considering the law on the subject including the provisions of G.O.Rt.No.655 the learned single Judge came to a conclusion that the respondent authorities were right in rejecting to extend the security cover to the petitioner therein. Learned single Judge also noticed that there is no threat perception. This order of the single Judge is confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.308 of 2019. Division Bench agreed with the findings of the learned single Judge. The Division Bench also held that if there is any threat from any quarter which missed the attention of the authority the petitioner always has a liberty to make an application along with necessary material for seeking police protection. If such an application is made the same was directed to be considered by the authorities. Therefore, the Writ Petition was disposed of directing the petitioner therein to make an application afresh seeking protection in G.O.Rt.No.655 along with the necessary material.
In the case on hand also this Court is of the opinion that the same procedure is to be followed. The settled case law on the subject is clear that threat perception is a matter of assessment by the Police authority. Unless material is placed to show that the analysis of the respondent police is incorrect, this Court cannot interfere. The petitioner has to establish the mala fides, the failure to consider adequate proper material or 7 consideration of improper material etc., to question the decision. If such material is not available, this Court cannot enter into the arena and cannot set aside the said decision. Therefore, this Court has to hold in the present case also that the petitioner has not made out a case for interference or for a direction that he should be provided with security. In line with the judgment in Writ Appeal mentioned above, this Court also holds that if the petitioner is so advised he can make an application afresh seeking police protection in terms of G.O.Rt.No.655, dated 13.03.1997 enclosing thereto the material to show the actual threat perception. If such an application is filed, the authority concerned shall deal with the same as per law; within the shortest possible period of time after hearing the appellant and also furnishing him any material that they wish to rely upon in coming to a just conclusion.
With the above observation the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
__________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, J Date:23.03.2022 Ssv