APHC010372222025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 825 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:- DL-1 [3483] The State of AP and others ...Appellants Vs. Lingala Ramalinga Reddy ...Respondent ********** Advocates for Appellants : The Advocate General Advocate for Respondent : Mr. O. Manoher Reddy, Sr. Counsel, appearing vice Mr. T. Nagarjuna Reddy CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI RESERVED ON : PRONOUNCED ON : 25.07.2025 24.11.2025 Per DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ: The present Writ Appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, has been preferred against judgment and order, dated 18.07.2025, passed in W.P.No.9349 of 2025. 2. Briefly stated, the material facts are as under: The case of the petitioner before the learned single Judge was that he was involved in politics, that his father and mother were elected as Sarpanch in Velpula Village in the State of Andhra Pradesh, that the petitioner and his wife are also elected to the Mandal Praja Parishad and further that his wife was also nominated as Chairman of Zilla Grandhalaya (District Library) in the 2 HCJ & RCJ W.A.No.825 of 2025 year, 2020, and as President of the Mahila Wing of a political party for Kadapa District. 3. The case of the petitioner was that even when he was facing threat from his political and business opponents, the police protection in the shape of 1+1 security guards provided to the petitioner had been withdrawn on 20.07.2024 without any notice to the petitioner. The petitioner claimed that he was facing threat of elimination from his political opponents which was brought to the notice of the authorities by way of representations, dated 17.03.2025 and 19.03.2025, requesting for restoration of the security to the petitioner. 4. The writ petition filed by the petitioner came to be allowed by the learned single Judge by virtue of judgment and order impugned, dated 18.07.2025, in the present writ appeal with a direction to the appellants to provide 1+1 security protection to the petitioner for a period of three months from the date of the said order at his own expense, and further at the end of the three months period, the Security Review Committee would take stock of all facts and circumstances prevailing at the time of making objective assessment of the threat perception allegedly faced by the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the judgment and order impugned to the extent it orders security be provided to the petitioner at his own expense for a period of three months, pending the consideration by the Security Review Committee, is unsustainable inasmuch 3 HCJ & RCJ W.A.No.825 of 2025 as the material on record did not at all justify any such order. It was urged that the issue with regard to providing security was squarely covered by the procedure prescribed under G.O.Rt.No.655, dated 13.03.1997. It was stated that the security which had been earlier provided to the petitioner was withdrawn as early as on 20.07.2024, thereafter the petitioner had made a representation only on 17.03.2025 and filed the writ petition on 08.04.2025. The fact that the representation was made at a belated stage after approximately eight months from the date the security was withdrawn itself suggests that there was no threat perception to be perceived by the petitioner. 6. Apart from that, it is stated that the representation filed by the petitioner was considered by the unit head, who is an SP-level officer, whose report did not at all suggest that there was any threat perception. It was urged that if at all the petitioner was aggrieved of the report, or the rejection of his representation providing security, there were remedies for the petitioner by way of approaching the State-level Security Review Committee, which is the apex body and in the event of failure at that level, a representation can be made to the Principal Secretary, Home Department, for appropriate redressal. 7. Learned Advocate General appearing for the appellants took us to the representation filed by the petitioner to bring home the point that the petitioner is engaged in business activities like mining etc. and also in politics. Although the representation did mention that there were attempts to assassinate the petitioner by the supporters of political rival groups, the 4 HCJ & RCJ W.A.No.825 of 2025 incidents had been reflected in the representation, which was considered by the unit officer, which resulted in a report indicating that there was no threat perception to the petitioner and, therefore, it is stated that the direction was unsustainable. 8. Mr. O. Manoher Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, would submit that the direction of the learned single Judge is sustainable inasmuch as the issue has not been considered by the unit officer in the correct perspective, and that the threat faced by the petitioner was real. It is stated that the persons who were affiliated to or alienated with the ruling party had been granted a security, while denying to the petitioner the same for the political considerations and on account of oblique motives. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 10. A perusal of the representation filed by the petitioner with the security agencies although contains an allegation that ‘henchmen’ had been dispatched on various occasions to attack the petitioner and that the petitioner had managed to escape each time, yet the details about the source of this information, the details regarding who the henchmen were and who deputed them and how the petitioner came to know that the henchmen had been deputed are conspicuously silent in the representation. 11. Yet again, the petitioner has mentioned another incident which is alleged to have happened in the month of December, 2024, when armed men 5 HCJ & RCJ W.A.No.825 of 2025 are stated to have attempted to ambush the petitioner’s vehicle while travelling from Velupula to Kadapa, in which the petitioner is stated to have narrowly escaped due to timely intervention of local well-wishers. In another incident, in January 2025, it is alleged that a group of assailants followed the petitioner late at night near the mining site and attempted to attack the petitioner with weapons, and the petitioner yet again managed to escape from the site. 12. We are surprised that if such were the attempts made on the life of the petitioner, why FIRs were not registered in respect of those incidents in the concerned Police Stations. While it may be true that the petitioner belongs to a family of politicians at the local level, and he and his wife too are in politics, yet merely because the petitioner is engaged in politics does not necessarily mean that he faces threat to his life. It is not unknown that sometimes having a personal security officer or a security guard also may give a false sense of importance and prestige to a person, and sometimes it is not uncommon that the PSOs or guards are sought only on that consideration even when the threat perception no longer exists. 13. Be that as it may, it is not for the Courts to decide as to whether the threat perception actually exists in regard to any person such as the petitioner in the instant case. This being a specialised subject which has to be dealt with based upon various inputs, secret information from informers, data from police record etc. 6 HCJ & RCJ W.A.No.825 of 2025 14. The petitioner himself is stated to have been involved in some criminal cases, and is engaged in mining operations and business interests within and outside the State. Therefore, the contention that the petitioner had to move his family to Bengaluru to provide a secure environment is contradicted by the stand of the appellants, who have attributed the said movement to Bengaluru on account of good education for the children of the petitioner. 15. We are of the opinion that in case the petitioner is not satisfied with the outcome of the assessment of the threat which is perceived by the petitioner at the level of the unit officer, he does have a remedy to approach the Security Review Committee, which is the apex body at the State level and then may be to the Government. The said remedy may be availed by the petitioner by approaching the said committee, and in case he does so, the committee would be obliged to consider the representation in accordance with the standard operative procedures for determining the threat perception. 16. Needless to say, Courts are generally ill-equipped to deal with security related issues and it is best left to the security agencies to take a call on the same. Principles of discrimination between those who have been provided security and those who have not been provided security do not arise in such cases. 17. Mr. O. Manoher Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent, has not brought on record any case to our notice where despite 7 HCJ & RCJ W.A.No.825 of 2025 the report of the security apparatus in the State that there was no threat perception for a particular political activist or person, yet security had been provided. Assuming there was any such case, it would never have formed a good precedent for us to follow. 18. Be that as it may, we allow the present writ appeal and set aside the judgment and order impugned with liberty to the petitioner/respondent herein to approach the Security Review Committee, if so advised, which may be considered on its own merits in accordance with the procedure prescribed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J kbs 8 HCJ & RCJ W.A.No.825 of 2025 117 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI W.A.No.825 of 2025 Dt: 24.11.2025 kbs