t- 4r IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AA/IARAV. MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE s'-'r 7"'} -iiij t ■'■ /’/ PRESENT Cl V/ THE HON’BLE THE.CHIEF JUSTICE SRI DHIRAJ SINGH THA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 541 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dt. 09.04.2025 in WP No. 9349 of 2025 on the file of the High Court. Between: 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Security Review Committee, Rep. by the Addl. Director General of Police, (Intelligence), Amaravathi, Guntur District. 3. The Addl. Director General of Police, (Intelligence), Amaravathi, Guntur District. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District. 5. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Vemula Police Station, YSR Kadapa District. ...APPELLANTS AND Lingala Ramalinga Reddy, S/o. Late Gangi Reddy, aged about 48 years R/o. Velupula Village, Vemula Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. ...RESPONDENT lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be r pleased to suspend the operation and effect of Order dated 09.04.2025 passed in Writ Petition No.9349 of 2025, pending disposal of Writ Appeal. Counsel for the Appellants: SRI D YATINDRA DEV FOR THE ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE Counsel for the Respondents: SRI O MANOHAR REDDY REPRESENTING SRI T NAGARJUNA REDDY The Court made the following: JUDGMENT Bench Sr.No:-5 [3483] APHC010237502025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI 0^; WRIT APPEAL NO: 541 of 2025 ...Appellants • The State of Andhra Pradesh and others Vs. ...Respondent Lingala Ramalinga Reddy ********** Mr. D. Yatindra Dev, learned counsel attached to the Office of the Advocate General Advocate for Appellants Mr. O. Manoher Reddy, Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. T Nagarjuna Reddy Advocate for Respondent CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : S"’ May, 2025 P C : The present writ appeal has been preferred against the order, dated 09.04.2025 passed in WP.No.9349 of 2025. By virtue of the order impugned, the learned single Judge has issued directions to the respondents (appellants herein), as an interim 2. measure, to restore security to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the 3. aforementioned direction is unsustainable inasmuch as even when the learned single Judge had placed reliance upon a report submitted before the HCJ & RC, J WA_541 2025 learned single Judge after examining the threat and it was concluded that there petitioner faced, yet, the learned single Judge had restoration of the security which was withdrawn as early as on 16.07.2024 perception of the petitioner was no threat perception at all which the proceeded to order 4. Mr. O. Manoher Reddy, learned Senior Counsel respondent herein, would submit that the threat appearing for the perception report which was placed before the learned single Judge pertained to an earlier assessment of the situation which was not the one which had now been projected before the police authorities by way of the representation dated 17.03.2025 which had not been considered by the appellants herein. It was sought to be urged that in the absence of a proper consideration of the latest representation, the appellants herein could that there was no threat perception to the petitioner. not have taken a plea 5. Learned counsel for the appellants on the other hand would submit that even the latest representation dated 17.03.2025 considered and a fresh report prepared which is with the counsel for the appellants in a sealed cover. It is, therefore, urged that the impugned order be set aside. has been 6. On a perusal of the order impugned, it can be seen that the order is only an interim order and the matter had to be considered i.e., today. It appears that the counter-affidavit has not been filed yet by the on 05.05.2025 3 HCJ & RC, J WA 541 2025 appellants herein along with the latest report which is with the learned counsel for the appellants in a sealed cover. Any observation made by us with regard to merits of the case, in our opinion, would render the proceedings before the learned single Judge academic. Whether or not the petitioner deserved to be protected by ordering restoration of his security which was being provided to him for as long as four years is a matter which needs to be considered by the learned single Judge after due consideration of the material on record including the counter affidavit. As to whether the report which was earlier placed before the learned single Judge and the report which has now been prepared goes into various aspects which would ensure protection of the life and limb of the petitioner are issues which need to be gone into in greater detail. ii It appears from the record that a number of instances have been given by the petitioner in the representation in which the petitioner claims that 7. he perceives a threat to his life. As to whether all the aspects in the representation have been adequately considered by the security agencies is a matter which needs to be gone into in greater detail. 4 / HCJ & RC, J WA 541 2025 What is material is the manner in which the representation has been dealt with and not just the conclusion arrived at by the security agencies. We feel that since the issue of security is a sensitive issue, it needs to be gone into in minute details. Be that as it may, we cannot persuade ourselves to interfere at this stage in the present appeal proceedings. It would be appropriate if the appellants appear before the learned single Judge in the writ petition which is listed today and place their view point in greater detail before the learned single Judge for appropriate consideration. 8. No order as to The Writ Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. 9. costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. Two CCs to The Advocate General, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 2. One CC to Sri T Nagarjuna Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 3. Three CD Copies TF h HIGH COURT DATED:05/05/2025 JUDGMENT WA.No.541 of 2025 n MAY 20» i£espATcit!^^ 'lx o DISPOSING OF THE W.A., WITHOUT COSTS