Anumula Revanth Reddy v. 1. The Union of lndia, IVinistry of Home

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not providing the 4+4 gunmen and escort security coverage to the petitioner inspite of the petitioner making representation on 14.03.20 1 6 as illegal, arbitrary, capricious and violative of Aiticle 2'1 of the Constitution of lndia and consequentially direct the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders on the representation made by the petitioner on 1 4.03.2016. l |.A.NO:1 OF 2016 (IWMP.NO:2804 OF 2016) Between The Union of lndia, Ir/inistry of Home, Rep by its Secretary Hcr re, North Block, New Delhi. ....PETITIONERyRESPONDENI /RESPONDENT No.'l AND 1 . Anumula Revanth Reddy, S/o.Late A.Narasimha R: years, Occ;Member of Legislative Assembly and Le: Legislature Party R/o.H.No.346, I\/LA Colony, Road Hyderabad.

1. The Director General of Police, State of Telangana, Dir€ Police, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Mahabubnagar District S I 3. The State of Telangana, rep by its The Principal Secrelz ldy, Hindu, aged 46 jer of Telugu Desam \o.12, Banjara Hills, :tor General of lte of Telangana. ry, Home Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS/VVRIT PETITIONER/REl) )ONDENT Nos.2 to 4 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir :umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cor r may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 16/06/2016 in W.P.lV.P.N(). 1882'1 of 2016 in W.P.NO. 1 51 68 of 2016. |.A.NO:2 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 18821 OF 2016) Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir :umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court ma r be pleased to direct the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders on the repres :ntation made by the petitioner on 14.03.201 6. a Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI R.GIRI KUMAR Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 : SRI MD. ABDUL MATEI N QURESHI, SC FOR UNION OF INDIA Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.2 to 4 : SRI ANURAG BA. PAl, AGP, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following ORDER - IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No. 15168 OF 2016 DATE:09.12.2025 Between: ORDER: Anumula Revanth Reddy AND Petitioner The Union of lndia, trlinistry of Home, Represented by its Secretary Home, North Block, New Delhi, and three others. . Respondents. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia seeking the following relief ".. .fo rssue a wit, order or direction, more parlicularly one in the nature of Wit of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1"t respondent in not providing the 4+4 gunmen and escotl security coverage to the petitioner in spite of the petitioner making representation on 14.03.2016, as illegal, akitrary, capicious and violative of Articb 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequentially direct the 1"t respondenf lo pass appropriate orders on the representation made by the petitioner on 14.03.2016 and pass such other order or orders. -." a

2. I have heard Mr. R. Giri Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Md. Abdul Mateen Qureshi, learned Standing Counsel for Union of I 2 AJr-&/ IY.P. No. 1 5168 o-f 20t 6 lndia, representing respondent No. 1 and Mr. Anur rg Bajpai, learned Assistant Government preader, attached to the orf :e of the rearned Additional Advocate General, appearing for responderr. Nos. 2 to 4. 3' Learned counser for the petitioner submits thi t the present writ petition has been fired chailenging the inaction of il e respondents in providing 4+4 gunmen and escort security coverage .r the petitioner, as sought through his representation dated 14.03.2016 re further submits that the counter affidavit fired by respondent No. 1/t re Union of rndia discloses that the petitioner's representation was consic ered; however, as per the statement made in the Rajya Sabha c,r rcerning security arrangements, the assessment of threat perception s required to be undertaken by a specially constituted committee es ablished for that purpose. lt is contended that the counter affidavit dor:r not indicate that any such committee has actually examined or consider rd the petitioner's case. Accordingry, rearned counser prays for issuance of a direction to the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's r :presentation in accordance with the prescribed procedure. 4 Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. l/Union of lndia submits that, as per the instructions received, the petitioner,s representation was dury considered in accordance wir r the procedure contemplated for evaluating security coverage. H<l yever, he fairly \ t J ^r&/ w.P. No. 15168 of 2016 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 14.03.20'16, 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 I 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. ln the absence of any materiar 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 entiflement to security cover, this court deems it I 4 NTR,/ l/.P. No. 15168 o;f 2016 : appropriate to direct respondent No. 1/the Union of lr lia to place the petitioner's representation dated 14.03.2016 beforr the Specially Constituted Committee responsible for assessing threr perception and determining security categorlzation, and to take an ap:'opriate decision thereon strictly in accordance with law and the prevailinll Suidelines.

9. With the above direction, this Writ Petition star ds disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall sl lnd closed. S-I! P. PONNA KRISHNA ..TASS ISTANT REGISTRAR '..-_ .__ . '- - ISECTION oFFIc ER \ \ me tlorth Block, New \ To //TRUE COPYII 1 ThenSecretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Home, 2. The Director General of Polhe, State of Telangana, J 4 ir,: :tor General of Police, Saifabad The Superi ntendent of police Mahabubna gar District Sti te of Telangana. The Princi pal Secretary, Home Secretariat uildings, Stz :e of Telangana at Hyderabad yderabad ,H B BEi Strl B I i X*",j [i['mE^ti8E,i f"#Bh^_, r )vo cArE MATEEN QURESHI' sc F(- t uNroN oF ; 5. One CC to SRt R.ctRt 7. One CC to SRt MD. AB ; [?t;r[:"r";#tir%3" M SA I I HIGH COURT DATED:0911212025 I .,.ii=D \J() r. 0 i JAli ?rii * - I .' i)Ar r: -'.\ tr - = :l_-.,------ / ORDER WP.No.15168 of 2016 DISPOSING OF THE W. WITHOUT COSTS. 4 j. i , .ri r. i::i!i7r:r..'