Point of law: It is one thing to say that in a given case a person may be held to be entitled to police protection, having regard to the threat perception, but it is another thing to say that he is entitled thereto for holding an office and discharging certain functions when his right to do so is open to question. A person could not approach the High Court for the purpose of determining such disputed questions of fact which were beyond the scope and purport of the jurisdiction of the High Court while exercising writ jurisdiction as it also involved determination of disputed questions of fact

ORDER :

1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in not providing interim security by arranging gunmen to the petitioner for his protection till the 2nd respondent takes decision in the Security Review Committee meeting even in spite of existence of the life threat to the petitioner as arbitrary, illegal and violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to take interim measures by providing gunmen to the petitioner till the 2nd respondent takes the decision in the Security Review Committee meeting in the interest of justice.”

2. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Allagadda Town, Kurnool District. He is an active politician. He is carrying on business. He owned and possessed vast properties. On account of business and politics, some of the residents of town and neighbouring villages become enemies and they intended to kill the petitioner with a view to knock away his property, cause damage to his business and political career.

3. Since the petitioner is actively participating in the politics, Smt. Bhuma Akhila Priya, Ex-Minister developed personal grudge against him. Smt. Bhuma Akhila Priya and her husband Bhargav Ram Naidu with an intention to eliminate him, conspired together and hired killers on payment of Rs. 50,00,000/-. As Smt. Bhuma Akhila Priya and her husband Bhargav Ram Naidu hired killers for committing the offence, police arrayed them as accused Nos. 3 and 4 in Crime No. 72 of 2020 dated 21.03.2020 of Chinnachowk U/G Police Station, registered for the attempt made by them to kill the petitioner.

4. The Chinna Chowk Police issued notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. to Bhargav Ram Naidu, but he did not respond to the said notice and did not cooperate with the police. Later, the said Bhargav Ram Naidu obtained anticipatory bail from this Court in Crl. Pet. No. 2112 of 2020 dated 10.08.2020. Thus, he was not arrested and moving freely, thereby there is any amount of threat to the petitioner on account of his active participation in politics.

5. The threat perception is being continued since 2018 when some persons attacked the petitioner with stones and at that time, the Gunmen promptly responded and saved his life by preventing the accused from committing murder. Since the security is withdrawn, enemies of the petitioner are taking advantage to eliminate him. In the earlier occasion, the Gunmen protected his life. In view of the existence of the life threat, the petitioner submitted a representation to respondent No. 3 with a request to provide security. Respondent No. 3 obtained threat perception report from the concerned police station and came to conclusion that there is a danger to the life, and forwarded the entire record to respondent No. 2.

6. Since the petitioner is having serious life threat, respondent No. 3 should have provided Gunmen for a limited period till the Security Review Committee takes decision. Since respondent No. 3 already came to conclusion that providing Gunmen to protect the life is just and essential, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 should have provided interim protection till the decision is taken by the Security Review Committee. The petitioner contended that no steps were taken till date to provide security as an interim measure during completion of scrutiny process of the application of the petitioner, requested to issue a direction to respondents to provide interim security on account of threat perception.

7. Respondents did not file any counter.

8. Sri. P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, has drawn the attention of this Court to various confessional statements recorded by the police in Crime No. 72 of 2020 dated 21.03.2020 of Chinnachowk U/G Police Station registered against several persons including Smt. Bhuma Akhila Pri