WP/30216/2014 of M.Raghunandan Rao, Vs The State olTelangana, on 30 December 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABADFOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

WRIT PETITION Nos.25121, 30216, 30633, 30825, 33668, 33734 and33954 of 2014

BETWEEN

Yadamakanti Rosi Reddy and others.

AND

... PETITIONERS

The Government of Telangana, Rep. by Principal Secretary, HomeDepartment, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.

...RESPONDENTS

Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. P. VISHNU VARDHAN REDDY

MR. RAVISHANKAR JANDHYALA

MR. K. SURESH REDDY

MS. KUMARI G.K.V.D.

MR. PARSA ANANTHA NAGESWAR

RAO

MR. P. NAGENDRA REDDY

Counsel for the Respondents: ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL (TG)

SPECIAL GP FOR HOME (TG)

The Court made the following:COMMON ORDER:

All these writ petitions are filed by the respective petitioners with acommon grievance against withdrawal of security provided to them by thethen State Government.

2. In almost all the writ petitions, the order impugned, therefore, is anotice issued by the Superintendent of Police of the concerned Districtinforming the respective petitioner that the Security Review Committee(SRC) in its meeting held on 03.07.2014 has decided to withdraw thesecurity in the absence of any specific threat from any individual or groupand as per the guidelines issued under G.O.Rt.No.655 Home (SC.B)Department dated 13.03.1997. In view of that the respective petitioner wasinformed that he is not entitled to any security in accordance with law. Inrespect of writ petitions relating to twin cities similar order is passed by theCommissioner of Police.

3. So far as WP.No.25121 of 2014 is concerned, when the writ petitionwas heard on 01.09.2014, this Court directed that the security provided willcontinue till the next date of hearing and thereafter, the said interim order wascontinued from time to time and is still in force. In all other writ petitions,however, there is no interim order. In each of the writ petitions, counteraffidavit is filed by respondents supporting the order impugned.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective petitioners and thelearned Government Pleader for Home representing the State of Telangana.

5. One of the common contentions of all the learned counsel for thepetitioners is that each of the petitioners was provided security either at theexpense of the State or on payment basis and the security was providedkeeping in view threat perception to each individual petitioner. Petitionersalso submit that the threat perception, which was existent at the time of granting security, continues even now, inview of the fact that all the petitioners are public representatives and arerequired to move about and interact with the members of the pubic and assuch, it cannot be said that there is no threat perception existing. Petitionersalso state that they have been subjected to humiliation by withdrawingsecurity in view of the change of the political scenario in the State andthereby, they contend that merely because the present ruling party is in power, the security of the petitioners, which was being provided for longnumber of years by the then State Government, is suddenly withdrawn.Petitioners also contend that in case of some of the petitioners security wasprovided on the ground that they were under imminent threat from theMaoists and as such, that threat continues even as on today, as the Maoistscontinue to target the politicians, particularly, those who are associated withthe previous ruling party. Hence, petitioners contend that withdrawal ofsecurity of the petitioners is purely on account of political rivalry between thepetitioners and the present ruling party.

6. In one of the writ petitions, it is alleged that the petitioner himself wassubject to threat on telephone and there was stone pelting by unknownpersons on his house causing damage to the car, which was alreadyreported to the police and an FIR was, accordingly, registered and ispending. In another writ petition, it is alleged that Maoists have attacked anearby village to the petitioner’s village and one of the villagers was shotdead by the Maoists on 12.10.2014, for which also a crime was registered inFIR.No.84 of 2014 before the Police Station Venkatapuram, KhammamDistrict on 14.10.2014. The aforesaid instances, in particular cases, arehighlighted by the learned counsel for the respective petitioner on the groundthat the events, which have occurred, as described above, clearly establish that the threatperception against the respective petitioner continues and as such, withdrawal of security is wholly arbitrary and liable to be interferedwith by this Court.

7. Learned Special Government Pleader representing learned AdditionalAdvocate General contends that in terms of the directions in WP.No.291 of1995 dated 14.10.1996 the Government has framed guidelines underG.O.Rt.No.655 Home (SC.B) Department dated 13.03.1997 and the salientfeatures of the said policy are as follows:

a)A private person may be provided individual security on threat perception only on advance payment basis subject toavailability of man power with the unit officer concerned.

b)Constitutional Functionaries and Statutory Functionarieshave to be provided security at the state’s cost, based onthreat perception.have to be provided security at the state’s cost, based onthreat perception.

c)A person having criminal back ground should not be givensecurity. In case there is genuine threat from naxalites ofPWG or in case he is holding public office, then specificpermission from Inspector General of Police, Intelligence,who is the Nodal Authority, security. In case there is genuine threat from naxalites ofPWG or in case he is holding public office, then specificpermission from Inspector General of Police, Intelligence,who is the Nodal Authority, should be taken before providing him.

d)In respect of factional groups, security should not be givento the affected parties since provision of security to onefaction and ignoring requests of other faction is not properand wherever it is felt necessary to give security to suchperson, the reasons for doing so shall be recorded by thecompetent authority.to the affected parties since provision of security to onefaction and ignoring requests of other faction is not properand wherever it is felt necessary to give security to suchperson, the reasons for doing so shall be recorded by thecompetent authority.

e)The leader of political parties who do not occupy any “public”office recognize by law are not entitled for protection at thecost of the state.office recognize by law are not entitled for protection at thecost of the state.

f)The security given by the Unit Officer or by the NodalAuthority will be upto a maximum period of 3 months. Freshthreat perception report should be called for every 3 monthsand action taken as per the report.Authority will be upto a maximum period of 3 months. Freshthreat perception report should be called for every 3 monthsand action taken as per the report.

8. Learned Special Government Pleader submits that the SRCcomprises of Joint Director, S.I.B; Deputy Director, S.I.B; D.I.G (Security);D.I.G (Intelligence); Joint Secretary (Protocol) and I.G.P (Greyhounds) asmembers and I.G.P (Intelligence) as Nodal Authority/Convener. SRC meetstwice in a year and takes up and considers all applications including freshapplications in accordance with the guidelines. Learned Special GovernmentPleader submits that the threat perception is evaluated by SRC periodicallyand in case of petitioners, appropriate decision is made by SRC after takinginto consideration the inputs received from various sources and on SRCbeing satisfied that there is no threat perception existing to the respectivepetitioners, the security provided earlier to them was withdrawn.

9. Learned Special Government Pleader also emphatically denied thatthe decision to withdraw the security has any political overtones and submits that that irrespective of the position or status of an individual, the threatperception was examined objectively by SRC and appropriate decision istaken depending upon the inputs received. Learned Special GovernmentPleader, therefore, submits that such decision cannot be impugned on theground of any arbitrariness, as the High Ranking Officials have examined thematerial before them objectively and only, thereafter, the decision to continueor withdraw is taken and that is communicated to the concerned person.

10. Learned Special Government Pleader also submitted that during thelast six months since the present Government is in Office there has not beenany instance involving any of the petitioners, which supports the decision ofSRC. Learned Special Government Pleader, therefore, submits thatirrespective of political affiliations of an individual, the SRC has assessed thethreat perception also by taking into consideration the proximity of threatexisting at the time of providing security and the threat perception as on thedate of review.

11. In view of these rival contentions, after hearing the learned counsel forthe petitioners and learned Special Government Pleader, this Court directedthe learned Special Government Pleader to produce the report of SRC.Accordingly, the said report is produced before this Court in a sealed coverand during the further hearing, I have seen the said report. However, beforeadverting to the said proceedings, it is necessary to notice G.O.Rt.No.655dated 13.03.1997, referred to above, which provides the guidelines, whichwere considered by SRC.

12. The Division Bench of this Court in G. SUBAS REDDY v. STATE OF

[1]AP

(WP.No.291 of 1995 and batch dated 14.10.1996) laid down the legal position as follows:

1. The State has a duty to provide necessary security to theconstitutional functionaries and if there is expense upon the saidsecurity, the Government can do so out of the funds of theexchequer of the State;constitutional functionaries and if there is expense upon the saidsecurity, the Government can do so out of the funds of theexchequer of the State;

2. …

3. Depending upon the threat perception in respect of suchstatutory functionaries, which are discharging duties on behalf ofthe State, the Government may take a policy decision andprovide security to such personnel to such extent as decided bythe Government and the expenses for the same can legitimatelybe borne by the State exchequer;

4. …

5. Individual or individuals, who apprehend threat to peace and tohis or their lives can approach the contempt authority at the firstinstance at the district level and make application for deploymentof such force for maintaining peace and for protection of his ortheir lives and liberty. his or their lives can approach the contempt authority at the firstinstance at the district level and make application for deploymentof such force for maintaining peace and for protection of his ortheir lives and liberty.

On such application being made, the competent authority shallbe duty bound to promptly make suitable orders without anydelay …be duty bound to promptly make suitable orders without anydelay …

6. Any person or persons, who, however, apprehension of threat totheir life or his or her property from the Government, its servantsor agents, in exceptional cases, can approach the Court forsuitable orders ...”their life or his or her property from the Government, its servantsor agents, in exceptional cases, can approach the Court forsuitable orders ...”

Accordingly, G.O.Rt.No.655 dated 13.03.1997 was issued in terms ofthe above order.

13. In terms of the aforesaid G.O., there are various categories offunctionaries, which are classified into Constitutional functionaries, statutoryfunctionaries, visiting dignitary and private persons. It is also provided thatpersons, who are classified under Z+, Z, Y, X, or X-2 category either by theUnion Government or other State Governments or by SRC of this State arereferred to as categorized persons and it is provided that they should begiven protection depending upon threat in Andhra Pradesh. TheSuperintendent of Police at the Districts and the Commissioner of Police ofthe City are described as Unit Officers/ Competent Authorities at the Districtlevel and Inspector General of Police (Intelligence) and the Government ofAndhra Pradesh are the competent authority at the State level. The decisionas to security is required to be taken at the unit level by the Unit Officers,who are competent authorities and the Superintendents of Police in the district and the Commissioner of Police in the City are required to conduct areview meeting once in every month and review threat perception and takeappropriate decision for continuation or withdrawal of security and theminutes of the review meeting are required to be sent to IGP (Intelligence)every month.

14. The G.O., further, provides guidelines for providing appropriatesecurity and it is also provided that while it is the duty of the State to protectevery citizen, specific security cover to any individual can be provided basedon his threat perception. The provision of security to different categories offunctionaries such as Constitutional functionaries and Statutory functionariesare required to be provided security at the State’s cost based on threatperception. Similarly,

providing security in the case of political leaders during election period andwith regard to persons, who have criminal background or are from factionalgroups, should be considered depending upon the opinion of Nodal authorityand competent authority. Thus, briefly, the G.O. sets out the manner inwhich the different categories of persons are to be provided security by theState. It also provides that at State level, SRC comprising of officers, as mentioned above, is constituted and it willmeet twice in a year and perform all the functions envisaged in the G.O. andconsider the individual applications in terms of the guidelines in the said G.O.

15. The proceedings of the meeting of SRC held on 03.07.2014 showsvarious aspects in terms of G.O. aforesaid including compliance report aboutthe action taken as per the instructions issued in the proceedings of themeeting was required to be sent by respective unit officers in the proformaprescribed. Notice withdrawing the security in particular cases was alsoprescribed and the text of the impugned order in almost all the cases isbased upon the notice prescribed.

The meeting on 03.07.2014 was presided over by IGP (Intelligence)Telangana State, Hyderabad and various other officers viz. JD, SIB, Hyderabad; IGP, ISW, Hyderabad and Incharge Greyhounds; IGP, SIB,Hyderabad and Incharge CISL along with special invitee the JointCommissioner of Police, SBCT, Hyderabad, have participated in themeeting. The meeting also took note of basic profile and guidelines inG.O.Ms.No.655 dated 13.03.1997 and analysis was made regardingincrease in the number of protectees and the PSO’s provided to them overthe preceding years. SRC was also apprised of acute shortage ofmanpower for security duties and need to objectively assess the threatperception. SRC, thereafter, proceeded to consider the various categories ofprotectees viz. Members of Parliament (Lok Sabha), Members of Parliament(Rajya Sabha), Union Ministers, Members of Legislative Council, Membersof Legislative Assembly, Ministers of Telangana State, Speaker of theAssembly and Chairman of he Council of Telangana State; security tocategorized protectees; DCCB Chairperson, Ex-members of Parliament and Ex-MLA; other protectees (non-categorized); Police Officers; Collectors and DistrictMagistrates and other categories covered by Court cases were allseparately considered by the SRC and appropriate remarks are indicated inthe last column as per the decision of SRC. The report, therefore, is in atabular form mentioning category, name of the person, political affiliation ofsuch person, existing security arrangement and the decision of SRC 2014.

16. The consideration of cases relating the petitioners in this batch ofcases is found under the category of security to other protectees (non-categorized) under Items 60, 76, 79 etc. and depending upon the individualconcerned, in some cases the security is continued whereas in some casesit is downgraded and in other cases, the decision to withdraw the securitywas also taken. Some of the fresh cases were also considered by SRC onthe basis of individual representations and appropriate decision was taken. Insome of the cases, where the Court directed continuation of security, thesecurity was continued.

17. The report of SRC, therefore, clearly establishes that each individualcase was assessed and appropriate decision is taken.

The inputs or the material or the discreet enquiry on the basis of which suchdecision is taken by SRC is, therefore, required to be accepted, as there isno reason to doubt that the high ranking officials, who are members of SRCwould provide or deny security, in a given case, merely on the basis ofdirections of ruling party in power and as such, the general allegations madeby the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot, therefore, be accepted.

18. It is also necessary to specifically deal with WP.No.30216 of 2014, asthe petitioner has made extensive references in the affidavit alleging that thesaid petitioner is politically opposed towards the present Chief Minister of theState of Telangana and has even proceeded to attribute malafides to the IG(Intelligence) on the ground that the father-in-law of the said officer was aPolit Bureau Member of the ruling party. Suffice it to note that thoughallegations are made against the individuals in the affidavit none of them areimpleaded as parties to this writ petition and as such, the said allegationscannot be taken note of. The report of SRC shows that under the caption ofsecurity of other protectees (non categorized), SRC has considered thecases of 119 individuals and the aforesaid petitioner’s case was consideredunder Item 79 showing that he was provided 1+1 PSO’s. However, adecision was taken to withdraw the security.

19. In the counter affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Police, MedakDistrict, in the aforesaid writ petition, it is stated that in the month ofDecember 2013 while considering the request of the petitioner and in view ofthe complaints lodged by the petitioner against the present Chief Minister ofTelangana State and his family members, 1+1 security was provided to himtemporarily till taking appropriate decision is taken by the next SRC. Counteraffidavit, further, states that after meticulous scrutiny of the threat perceptionof the petitioner, SRC came to the conclusion to withdraw the security. The allegation of bias against the Additional DGP (Intelligence) was denied andpointed out that the SRC comprises of various other high ranking officials.The counter affidavit, further, states that the petitioner is always at liberty toapproach the local police or Superintendent of Police, Medak with a freshapplication with information of inputs of threat to him from any individual orgroup and then the case will be considered on fresh threat perception onmerits. It is also pointed out that security cover to the petitioner waswithdrawn on 18.08.2014. However, the petitioner has approached this Courtby the present writ petition only after two months of withdrawal of security.

20. It is also necessary to notice that a batch of writ petitions with similargrievance was considered by a learned single Judge of this Court inWP.No.23563 of 2014 and batch dated 26.09.2014.

After considering the entire matter, this Court felt and directed as follows:

“… I feel that the ends of justice would be better served bypreserving liberty to each of the petitioners/protectees to draw up anappropriate representation calling the attention of the reviewcommittee as to why the security cover existing earlier should becontinued and should not be withdrawn so that the review committeein turn would objectively reexamine the entire exercise and takeappropriate final decision …”

21. The case of the petitioners herein was not part of the said batch.However, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the saidorder in support of their respective cases. Keeping in view thecircumstances, as discussed above and that the last of the security reviewmeeting was held on 03.07.2014, in my view, the next meeting of the reviewcommittee would fall due after six months of the last meeting. Hence, all the writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions:

1. Petitioners would be at liberty to make appropriaterepresentations duly mentioning the latest threat/inputsrelating to threats, if any, by approaching the respective unitofficers.representations duly mentioning the latest threat/inputsrelating to threats, if any, by approaching the respective unitofficers.

2. As and when such representations are received, the respective unit officers shall examine the same andforward the same to the Security Review Committee alongthe respective unit officers shall examine the same andforward the same to the Security Review Committee along with their comments.

3. The Security Review Committee shall consider all suchrepresentations together with the comments of the unitoffices and all other material and inputs at its command andtaken appropriate decision in the matter and communicatethe same to the respective petitioner.representations together with the comments of the unitoffices and all other material and inputs at its command andtaken appropriate decision in the matter and communicatethe same to the respective petitioner.

4. Interim order granted in WP.No.25121 of 2014 shall continuetill the aforesaid exercise is completedtill the aforesaid exercise is completed As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

December 30, 2014DSK

_____________________VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J