IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI DATE: 09.12.2025 Between :

Anumula Revanth Reddy … Petitioner AND The Union of India, Ministry of Home, Represented by its Secretary Home, North Block, New Delhi, and three others.

… Respondents.

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“…to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1^st respondent in not providing the 4+4 gunmen and escort security coverage to the petitioner in spite of the petitioner making representation on 14.03.2016, as illegal, arbitrary, capricious and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequentially direct the 1^st respondent to pass appropriate orders on the representation made by the petitioner on 14.03.2016 and pass such other order or orders…”

2. I have heard Mr. R. Giri Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Md. Abdul Mateen Qureshi, learned Standing Counsel for Union of India, representing respondent No. 1 and Mr. Anurag Bajpai, learned Assistant Government Pleader, attached to the Office of the learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present writ petition has been filed challenging the inaction of the respondents in providing 4+4 gunmen and escort security coverage to the petitioner, as sought through his representation dated 14.03.2016. He further submits that the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 1/the Union of India discloses that the petitioner’s representation was considered; however, as per the statement made in the Rajya Sabha concerning security arrangements, the assessment of threat perception is required to be undertaken by a Specially Constituted Committee established for that purpose. It is contended that the counter affidavit does not indicate that any such Committee has actually examined or considered the petitioner’s case. Accordingly, learned counsel prays for issuance of a direction to the respondents to reconsider the petitioner’s representation in accordance with the prescribed procedure.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1/Union of India submits that, as per the instructions received, the petitioner’s representation was duly considered in accordance with the procedure contemplated for evaluating security coverage. However, he fairly submits that there is no specific material placed on record to demonstrate that the matter was examined by the Committee constituted for this purpose. Hence, he prays for passing of appropriate directions as deemed fit by this Court.

5. I have perused the material placed on record.

6. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that, although his representation dated 14.03.2016, seeking 4+4 gunmen and escort security coverage, was stated to have been “considered,” the counter affidavit filed by the respondents does not disclose that the matter was placed before or deliberated upon by the Specially Constituted Committee responsible for evaluating threat perception.

7. When the applicable procedure mandates that such cases be considered by a designated committee, the record must reflect that the petitioner’s representation was duly placed before and examined by the said Committee. In the absence of any material indicating such consideration, this Court is of the view that the decision making process appears incomplete and requires reconsideration to ensure procedural fairness and adherence to established norms.

8. In view of the above, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s entitlement to security cover, this Court deems it appropriate to direct respondent No. 1/the Union of India to place the petitioner’s representation dated 14.03.2016 before the Specially Constituted Committee responsible for assessing threat perception and determining securi