Bhoomireddy Ramgopala Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2022 Latest Caselaw 1423 AP

                                    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

same was withdrawn he filed W.P.No.18029 of 2006, in which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

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

(1996) 4 ALT 985 (DB)

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

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

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

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