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 Once the same was withdrawn he filed W.P.No.18029 of 2006, in which an interim order was also granted.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.