( 1 ) THE petitioner is Managing Partner of M/s. Urvasi Enterprises. The said firm is running three theatres i. e. Ramba, Urvasi and Menaka Theatres in Rajahmundry. There were certain differences between the petitioner and among other partners. This head to a serious quarrels and altercations between Sri Kurma Rao and his sons on one side and the petitioner and his group on the other side. It is even alleged that on 28-4-1996 the opposite group assaulted him causing grievous injuries and the same was reported to the Police, The petitioner s weapon bearing Arms Licence No. 222/l/rmy was deposited with the Police as per the orders of the Government. When he tried to get the gun released, his opponent filed a writ petition which was dismissed. Thereafter, the District Magi strafe/collector, East Godavari also recommended for release of the weapon to him. However, the weapon was not released to him.

( 2 ) THE petitioner states that there is a serious threat to his life, by the opposite group. Therefore, as there is serious life threat perception, he made a representation to the 3rd respondent to provide a gunman as a security to his personal life and liberty. As no orders are passed by the Superintendent of Police, he approached this Court by filing WP No. 1944 of 1998 on 16-7-1998. This Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the Superintendent of Police to dispose or" the representation of the petitioner dated 16-6-1998 within two weeks and provide a gunman immediately. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent addressed a letter on 4-3-1999 to the petitioner to deposit amount for providing gunman. Gunman was provided and he was withdrawn by an order dated 1-4-1999 without assigning any reasons. The petitioner states that due to visit of VIP dignitaries in connection with the centenary celebrations of Rajahmundry Bar, the Police require constables and therefore the gunman was withdrawn. Be that as it may, the present position is that the petitioner is without gunman. As there is serious threat perception to his life, the petitioner approached this Court praying for a writ of mandamus declaring non-providing of security is violative of Article 21 and for consequential direction to the respondents to provide gunman.

( 3 ) AFTER receiving the notice, the 3rd respondent filed detailed counter. In brief the counter states that no doubt there are serious mis-understandings among the partners. They are only simple property disputes. There is no threat or danger to the life of the petitioner or to his family members. Therefore, there is no necessity to provide a gunman. The 3rd respondent s report is based on enquiries. If any report is called for from intelligence sources, the same is not enclosed to the counter-affidavit. The point for consideration is:whether the respondents have committed any illegality in not providing a gunman security to the petitioner?

( 4 ) IN Subas Reddy v. State of A. P. , 1997 (2) ALD 694, a Division Bench of this Court considered the question of providing Police security to private persons. The Division Bench also formulated guide-lines. While coming to the conclusion that it is the duty of the State to provide security to protect the life and liberty of the citizens guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Division Bench relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, (1996) 1 SCC 742. The Supreme Court in the said judgment observed as follows:"no Slate Government worth the name can tolerate such threats by one group of persons to another group of persons; it is duty-bound to protect the threatened group from such assaults and if it fails to do so, it will fail to perform its constitutional as well as statutory obligations. Those giving such threats would be liable to be dealt in accordance with law. "

( 5 ) AFTER the judgment of the Division Bench in Subas Reddy s case (supra) the Government of A. P. issued detailed ord