Dismissed

Vempalli Praveen Kumar Reddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Home Department

Telangana HC7 Jul 2010WP/9698/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking restoration of Personal Security Officer protection. The court rejected the claim, noting pending criminal cases and a rowdy sheet against the petitioner, stating security cannot be granted absent real and imminent threat perception.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Vempalli Praveen Kumar Reddy Vs Government… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.9698 of 2007

¶3

Dated:07.07.2010

¶4

Between:

¶5

Vempalli Praveen Kumar Reddy.

¶6

...Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

Government of Andhra Pradesh, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, And others.

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.9698 of 2007

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

The petitioner is a resident of Tuvvapalli Village of Vempalli Mandal in Kadapa District. He is statedly the brother-in-law of Sri S.V.Satish Kumar Reddy, Telugu Desam Party In-Charge for Pulivendula Constituency. He applied to the third respondent in 2006 for personal security. After considering the threat perception aspect, he was provided with a Personal Security Officer (PSO). The Police protection was, however, withdrawn after November 2006. Aggrieved by the same, he filed the instant writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to restore security to the petitioner.

¶13

This Court while admitting the writ petition passed interim orders on 01.05.2007 directing the respondents to continue the security provided earlier. The Superintendent of Police, Kadapa, filed W.V.M.P.No.1896 of 2007 to vacate the interim order. At that stage itself, the matter is heard finally and is being disposed of. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is closely related to Sri S.V.Satish Kumar Reddy, who is Telugu Desam Party InCharge for Pulivendula Constituency, and there is a threat to the petitioner’s life from the rival politicians and

¶14

anti-social elements. He submits that unless and until the threat perception is reviewed properly the same cannot be withdrawn. He relies on G.Subas Reddy v State of Andhra Pradesh^[1] , Katasani Rami Reddy v Government of Andhra Pradesh^[2] , and R.Venkateswara Rao v State of Andhra Pradesh^[3] . Per contra, Assistant Government Pleader for Home relies on the instructions issued by the Government in G.O.Rt.No.655, dated 13.03.1997 as well as the decisions cited herein and submits that when there is no threat perception, the PSO can be withdrawn.

¶15

The guidelines issued in G.O.Rt.No.655 and decisions of this Court require the Police authorities to protect the life of a person when there is a threat perception. Any order providing protection to the person has to be reviewed in the light of quarterly threat perception reports and when once it is found that there is no threat perception existing, there is nothing wrong in withdrawing the PSO. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition.

¶16

The Assistant Government Pleader has placed before this Court the threat perception report pertaining to the petitioner (a copy thereof is made part of the record). A perusal of the same would show that there are five criminal cases pending against the petitioner and a rowdy sheet is maintained against him. If there are criminal cases pending against a person and a rowdy sheet is maintained, it is rather curious as to how such person can be given Police security. When a person has come in conflict with the law, and is accused in a criminal case, the guardians of law and order cannot be compelled to provide security to such person unless and until there is real and imminent threat perception to his life.

¶17

In the result, for the above reasons, the writ petition fails, and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

_______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J)

¶19

07.07.2010 vs

¶20

[1] 1996 (4) ALT 985 (DB) [2] 1998 (3) ALT 392 [3] 1999 (5) ALT 71

Vempalli Praveen Kumar Reddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Home Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vempalli Praveen Kumar Reddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Home Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Illingi Rudra Raju, Vs The District Collector

B.Madan Rao Vs The Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer

S.Vanaja Reddy, Vs The Joint Collector

Indukuri Satyanarayana Raju, Vs District Collector

Mohd. Khaleelullah Shareef Vs Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Borad

Venkat Reddy, Vs The Special Deputy Collector