2024:MHC:1980 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 12.04.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.No.22250 of 2023 and W.M.P.No.21628 of 2023 M.R.Kalimuthu ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Principal Chief Secretary, The Government of Tamil Nadu, Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

2.Director General of Police, No.1, Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.

3.The Additional Director General of Police (Intelligence), No.2, Papanasam Sivan Salai, Chennai - 600 004.

4.The Inspector General of Police (Intelligence), No.2, Papanasam Sivan Salai, Chennai - 600 004. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to restore Y Scale Security to the Petitioner and his family as reflected in the Proceeding of the 4^th respondent dated 01.11.2008 forthwith.

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Prabhu Mukunth Arun Kumar For R1 : Mr.K.Surendran Additional Government Pleader For R2 to R4 : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

O R D E R

The Writ of Mandamus has been instituted to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to restore 'Y' Scale Security to the petitioner and his family as reflected in proceedings of the 4^th respondent dated 01.11.2008.

2. The petitioner is a retired Additional Superintendent of Police and aged about 79 years old. The petitioner states that he had investigated many sensitive cases, while holding the office of the Additional Superintendent of Police and further headed a team in an encounter case in the year 2002. Soon after the retirement of the petitioner 'Y' Scale Security was provided to him by the Police Department. Subsequently, it had withdrawn on the ground that there is no threat perception.

3. Mr.D.Prabhu Mukunth Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly contend that certain outfits are functioning within the radius of 5 Kms from the residence of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner is facing threat even today. The security forces provided are reduced periodically and finally two Constables were given as security to the petitioner. That also has been taken in the year 2023.

4. Mr.Vinoth Kumar, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

appearing on behalf of the respondents 2 to 4 would submit that the Security Review Committee (SRC) is an independent body comprising of the following senior officials of as Chairman and Members:

(a)Additional chief Secretary / Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Chennai – 9. -Chairman (b)Director General of Police, Greater Chennai Police, Chennai -Member (c)Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police, Chennai -Member (d)Additional Director General of Police / Inspector General of Police, Intelligence, Chennai -Member (e)Deputy Director, Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau, Chennai -Member (f) Deputy Commissioner of Police, Security Chennai Police, Chennai -Member (g)Superintendent of Police, Security Branch CID, Chennai -Member The decisions of the Security Review Committee are taken without any external influence.

5. It is further submitted that the Security Review Committee based on the reports of following agencies withdrew the Police protection, since there was no threat perception for the writ petitioner.

(1)The Assistant Director, Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau, Chennai (2)The Superintendent of Police, Special Branch CID, Chennai (3)The Superintendent of Police, Special Division, Chennai (4)The Superintendent of Police, “Q” Branch CID, Chennai (5)The Superintendent of Police, Organised Crime Intelligence Unit, Chennai and (6)Jurisdictional Officer concerned.

6. The Competent Committee assessed the situation and based on the report they have taken a decision to withdraw Security provided to the writ petitioner, since there was no threat perception.

7. The Committees decision in this regard must be accepted by the Courts, since it involves expertise and assessment of threat by the Competent Police