BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.04.2024 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI W.P(MD)No.8557 of 2024 Murugesan. Pon, ... Petitioner Vs

1. The Director General of Police, Office of the Director General of Police, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai.

2. The Inspector General of Police, Office of the Inspector General of Police, Central Zone, Trichy.

3. The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Trichy District.

4. The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Trichy District.

5. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruverumbur Division, Trichy District.

6. The Inspector of Police, Thuvakudi Police Station, Trichy. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to provide necessary police protection to the petitioner by deputing a Gunman / Armed Police for the protection of the petitioner life, limb and liberty by considering the petitioner's representation dated

20.03.2024. .

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani For Respondents : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to provide necessary police protection to the petitioner by deputing a Gunman / Armed Police for the protection of the petitioner life, limb and liberty by considering the petitioner's representation dated 20.03.2024.

2.The petitioner claims that he is the Founder cum President of the political party called Akila India Makkal Marumalarchi Kalagam , which is a duly registered political party in the Election Commission of India with Registration No.56/146/2019-2020/PPS-1.

3. The petitioner is a practising Advocate at Trichy. The petitioner claims that he is also the founder and President of a Political party. The petitioner was provided gun licence and due to model code of conduct in respect of the ensuing Parliament election, he was asked to surrender the gun. Now he claims that he is facing life threat and therefore seeks for police protection, for his election campaign, based on his representation, dated 20.03.2024.

4.It would be relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramveer Upadhyaya Vs. R.M.Srivastava and others reported in 2013 (7) Scale 564, wherein it has been held as follows:

"7.However, in our experience, we have hardly seen any security of 'Z' or 'Y' catergory provided to any ordinary citizen howsoever, grave the threat perception or imminent danger may be to the person concerned. The petitioner, however, has claimed it obviously as a 'privileged class' by virtue of being an ex-minister which at times, may be justified even to an ex- minister or any other dignitary, considering the nature and function of the duties which he had discharged, which could facilitate the assessment of his threat perception even after laying down the office. But what exactly is his threat perception and whether the same is grave in nature, obviously will have to be left to be decided by the authorities including the authorities of the State or the Centre which may include even the Intelligence Bureau or any other authority concerned which is entitled to assess the threat perception of an individual. But in so far as the Court of law is concerned, it would obviously be in a predicament to come to any conclusion as to whether the threat perception alleged by a person claiming security is grave or otherwise which would hold him entitled to the security of a greater degree, since this is clearly a question of factual nature to be dealt with by the authorities entrusted with the duty to provide security after assessing the need and genuineness of the threat to any individual."

5. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the threat perception as alleged by the petitioner is clearly a question of factual nature to be dealt with