High Court · 2025

PetitionunderArticle226oftheConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe tnerewitn. the High court may be circumstances stated in ,n" oleased to issue a writ o''b'iefm-oi" pa'ti"ularly one in the nature of Writ of dectaring ,h" f rprg"li'fl"tl.i" ,1 illegjl, arbitrary, unjust and violative 'trilandamus, of the fundamental rights g;5;;i""0 t" the Petitioners undei Article 14 and 21'of direct the Respondents to provide the Constitution of lndia ;ft';;;;;tilv immediate 2 + 2 Police Protection' "?ii*ii-nled IANO:1O F 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in ii" p"tititit' tn-"-ff igl Court may be pleased'.to direct the affidavit filed in support r'""'i'ig ;itftin e weeks and permit the Petitioner to "t Respondents to conduct " oroduce all the materiar ani inrofliation which is available with the Petitioner to prove there is a imminent life threat' Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D.NARENDAR NAIK Gounsel forthe Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR n o. 1 I of o2 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.l to 3, and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the pafties, 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.09.0.3.2025 requesting to provide 2+2 personal security officers for his security has been rejected by the 2nd respondent by issuing impugned proceeding dt.07.05.2025 opportunity of hearing, whereby he could have apprised the 2nd 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 rhreat 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. without granting an 2

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 complalnt 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 2nd respondent authority had arrived at the aforesaid conclusion of the petitioner not having any threat from any individuaUgroup/Left Wing Extremist groups, and as such' n0 security is recommended.

6. Learned Government Pleader further submits that since' the petitloner 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. ) 3

7. On the aforesaid submission being made by the learned Government Preader, rearned counser for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would approach the authorities once again by submitting a fresh representation encrosing the rerevant information rerating to incidents on the basis of which he perceives threat to his rife and arso other materiar 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. B. Learned Government pleader would fairly submit that if any such representation is fired by the petitioner afresh arong with the detairs of incidents/compraints rodged with the concerned porice authorities and other materiar avairabre in his possession by which the petitioner perceives threat to his rife, the authorities wourd consider and prace 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 racked detairs oF the areged incidents resulting in the petitioner perceiving threat to his life and also as to the details on the basis of which he is seeking for being provided with the security, this court is of the view that the petitioner shourd be directed to I I 4 o submit a fresh representation within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order along with the relevant material and the details of incident giving rise to his apprehension. Upon the petitioner filing fresh representaticn along with the relevant material, the respondents_ authorities are directed to prace the same befoi'e the Threat perception Committee in its next meeting For its consideration.

10. Subject to above directions, the Writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

11. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petiilon shall stand closed. sd/-A SREENYA:t,SFRRX //rRUE coPY// secrrs*ircen \ 2 3 ',. -n" Spl. Chief Secretary' Home Department Secretariat' Hyderabad' State of If;5tYrXl?;t oeneral of Police, Government of relanoana' Hvderabad' Fiii"t'"Ir""iJirigJnJe covernment of Telangana' . The lnspector General .PI1"3H..'$?sAltsiPAi[t'hf ii:??[?to,l??l'"'unn"nu'" Hvderabad. [OUTI Trfuo CD Copies "t 4 E

6. PSK. PVL HIGH COURT DATED:0310712025 ORDER WP.No.18918 of 2025 " : ,ir. iiE ii rzr -(' o^' O3 SEPM \ii'-".. \-.,,'.....,- i, :l/-- / '-,1/ DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS