( 1 ) IN Writ Petition No. 291 of 1995, B. Sudershan Reddy, J. , by his order dated 1-10-1996 has noted the facts of the case and sought a reference on the question - should this Court exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and compel the authorities to provide security to all the persons who are either leading factions or actively participating in the factions? and that almost all of them are facing serious criminal charges and, :- "what are the parameters of judicial review in such a situation? The legality and validity, of the Government s policy decision, withholding security to all these factionists also would fall for consideration. Can the Court substitute its own view and declare the policy of the Government as illegal or unconstitutional? It is a judicially manageable situation where appropriate directions could be issued in each case compelling the Police to provide security? Should the State be compelled to spend its limited resources to provide security to factionists and pass on the liability to tax payers? Can the State provide the services of an armed security guard to each citizen? It is common knowledge and judicial notice can be taken about the the prevalent culture of factions in Rayalaseema which had already destroyed the peace and tranquility of the common man who is constantly living under threat of fear. What security is to be provided to those innocent victims of faction violence and by whom?"

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, however, when the reference has been taken up, reported that the application has become infructuous and no order need be passed in it. Since, however, this Court noticed that not this case in which the learned Judge has sought the reference alone, but a number of other cases seeking command to the Police for providing security are being filed and have been filed and the Courts invariably exercised jurisdiction mostly by brief and almost dismissive orders to provide security. The Court called for all such cases which were noticed on the subject and were pending for orders and extended a comprehensive hearing to learned counsel for the parties, including Writ Petition No. 10432 of 1996, which is one by the wife of the petitioner B. Subas Reddy in Writ Petition No. 291 of 1995. We shall advert to the facts of the cases as and when necessary for specific orders, but before we do so, we propose to take a bird s eye view of the laws which speak of the maintenance of the peace and providing security to the citizens who are threatened either by anti-social elements or their personal enemies as well as those who are threatened by one or the other agency of the State including the Police itself.

( 3 ) THE Act called the "code of Criminal Procedure, 1973" (Central Act No. 2 of 1974) which, is not in dispute, applies in respect of all offences under the Indian Penal Code as well as other laws, subject to any enactment for the time being in force, regulating the manner or place of investigation enquiring into crime or otherwise dealing with such offences in the State. The Code has broadly recognised the role of Executive Magistrates and Judicial Magistrates, the hierarchy of the investigation of the offences, subject to the provisions of the Police Acts applicable in different areas of the State and that of the Courts of Sessions. It has commanded for the appointment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in every district, not being a metropolitan area by the High Court, as well as Special Judicial Magistrates and for the establishment of the Courts of Metropolitan Magistrates in every metropolitan area and at such places as the State Government may after consultation with the High Court by notification specify and has given the power to the High Court to appoint the Presiding Officers of such Courts. The Act is exhaustively indicative of what may be the local jurisdiction of Executive