THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Writ Petition No. 18918 of 2025

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the admission stage.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner, in brief, is that, his representation dt.09.03.2025 requesting to provide 2+2 personal security officers for his security has been rejected by the 2^nd respondent by issuing impugned proceeding dt.07.05.2025 without granting an opportunity of hearing, whereby he could have apprised the 2^nd respondent authority of threat perception perceived by him to his life for the authorities to take necessary action.

3. Petitioner further contends that his representation has been summarily rejected by mentioning that Threat Perception Report obtained from all the officers concerned and other intelligence inputs does not indicate any threat to him from any individual/group/Left Wing Extremist groups, and as such, no security is recommended, and accordingly, rejected the request of the petitioner for providing security. Hence, this Writ Petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has annexed various documents to the present Writ Petition, which clearly show that there is a threat to petitioner’s life and therefore, the authorities ought to have considered the threat perception perceived by the petitioner in proper manner to secure his life.

5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 would submit that if the petitioner perceived any threat, he ought to have mentioned the details of incidents, on the basis of which the said threat is perceived by him while making representation and also the details of he approaching the concerned authority by lodging a complaint for the committee to evaluate and in absence of the said details being mentioned in his representation, the authorities have called for a report from the jurisdictional officers and based on other intelligence inputs, the 2^nd respondent authority had arrived at the aforesaid conclusion of the petitioner not having any threat from any individual/group/Left Wing Extremist groups, and as such, no security is recommended.

6. Learned Government Pleader further submits that since, the petitioner while submitting representation, dt.09.03.2025 had only stated he having threat from specific individual/group/left wing extremists, the same cannot be a basis for the authorities to extend the security as sought for by him.

7. On the aforesaid submission being made by the learned Government Pleader, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would approach the authorities once again by submitting a fresh representation enclosing the relevant information relating to incidents on the basis of which he perceives threat to his life and also other material available with him for the authorities to consider his request for providing security and thus, seeks a direction to the respondents-authorities to consider the application as may be submitted by the petitioner.

8. Learned Government Pleader would fairly submit that if any such representation is filed by the petitioner afresh along with the details of incidents/complaints lodged with the concerned police authorities and other material available in his possession by which the petitioner perceives threat to his life, the authorities would consider and place the same before the Threat Perception Committee, which will take a decision by evaluating the reports furnished by the jurisdictional authorities and also as to the size of the security cover that is to be provided, if it is found that there is any threat to the person approaching the authorities.

9. In view of the aforesaid submission, since, the representation of the petitioner dt.09.03.2205 lacked details of the alleged i