The court emphasized the need for a comprehensive threat assessment before withdrawing personal security, recognizing the dynamic nature of threats faced by individuals in political and business contexts.

ORDER :

HARINATH.N, J.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in withdrawing 1+1 personal security officers on 20.07.2024 and seeks a direction to the respondents to restore the security officers to the petitioner. In that regard the petitioner submitted a representation dated 17.03.2025, which is yet to be considered by the respondents.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner hails from a family which is politically active and the petitioner’s father and mother were elected as Sarpanch of Velpula Village. It is submitted that the mother of petitioner served as a Sarpanch of the village for almost twenty years. The petitioner and his wife were also elected Mandal Prajaparishad. The petitioner’s wife was also nominated as Chairman of Zilla Grandhalaya in the year 2020. She was also nominated as President of YSRCP Mahila Wing for Kadapa District.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is facing threat from his political and business opponents and on account of the threat to the family of the petitioner, he has shifted his children to Bangalore for safety and educational purposes in the year 2023. It is also submitted that the petitioner is also a Contractor executing several works for corporate companies as well as public sector undertakings. It is submitted that the petitioner has submitted income tax returns showing considerable income. On account of the petitioner achieving success in his business ventures the political opponents and others opposing the petitioner in Kadapa District were holding out threats of elimination. The petitioner submitted a representation to the government in the month of July, 2020. Accordingly, the petitioner was extended 1+1 security since then. However, on 20.07.2024, the personal security was withdrawn without issuing any notice by the respondents.

4. In this regard, the petitioner approached the Superintendent of Police, Kadapa and appraised him of the threats faced by the petitioner and requested for restoration of the security. It was also informed to the Superintendent of Police that the petitioner was forced to shift his family to Bangalore unable to cope up with the constant threats. The petitioner submitted representations on 17.03.2025 and 19.03.2025 requesting for restoration of the security to the petitioner. In his representation he has stated various events which are indicating grave danger to the petitioner’s life. A specific incident of a group of assailants attempting to attack the petitioner in January, 2025 near the mining site was also referred to in the representation.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that G.O.Rt.No.655, HOME (SC.B) Department, dated 13.03.1997 provides for extension of temporary security cover to also those who do not fall under the definition of constitutional functionaries, statutory functionaries, visiting dignitary etc., It is submitted that the threat perception report prepared by the police is without truly considering the circumstances and basing on the Security Review Committee meeting 16.07.2024, the respondents have withdrawn the security cover to the petitioner.

6. It is submitted that there is no case pending against the petitioner, as such, the applicability of Government Order (GO) in so far as the petitioner is concerned cannot be doubted with. It is submitted that the 4^th respondent is not inclined to extend the security to the petitioner at the behes