APHC010495112024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 25543/2024 Between: 1. CHITHA VIJAYA PRATHAP REDDY, S/O. SHOWRY REDDY, AGED 52 YEARS, OCC CHAIRMAN, A.P STATE FOOD COMMISSION, 2ND FLOOR, CIVIL SUPPLIES BHAVAN, BANDAR ROAD, ASHOK NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA,KRISHNA DISTRICT,A.P. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, STATE OF A.P., MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE INTELLIGENCE, STATE OF A.P., MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE ADDL DGP INTELLIGENCE, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH. 5. THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT. 6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KADAPA, YSR DISTRICT. 7. THE STATE LEVEL SECURITY REVIEW COMMITTEE, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CHENNA REDDY K Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: 2 “.... a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the representation of the petitioner dated 13.09.2024 to restore the 1 + 1 Security Personnel to the petitioner as Illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and also violations of Article21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to implement the Govt. Memo. No.CSS- CS11/129/2017, dt.18.11.2017.” 2. Heard Sri K.Chenna Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.A.Jayanthi, learned Government Pleader for Home. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner was appointed as Chairperson of the A.P. State Food Commission under G.O. Ms. No. 6, CA, F&CS Department, dated 28.03.2022 in terms of Section 16 of the National Food Security Act, 2013, to monitor and review the implementation of the said Act across the State. In discharge of such statutory duties, the Petitioner has travelled extensively and inspected more than 1200 centres, including Fair Price Shops, Anganwadi Centres, welfare hostels, and other establishments. The learned counsel further submits that, in view of this duties, on the letter addressed by the Petitioner, dated 06.04.2022 requesting to provide 2 + 2 Security Personnel along with escort, the Government had provided 1 + 1 security personnel in May, 2023. However, in July, 2024, the same was withdrawn, without assigning any reasons and without issuing any notice to the Petitioner. It is further submitted that the impugned action is in clear violation of Govt. Memo No. CSS-CS11/129/2017 dated 18.11.2017, which mandates provision of 2 + 2 security personnel along with escort to the Chairperson of the A.P. State Food Commission, and also contrary to the Warrant of 3 Precedence issued under G.O. Ms. No. 59 dated 11.04.2018, wherein the Chairperson is placed under Article 17 with a corresponding obligation to extend security. Learned counsel would further submit that as per G.O. Rt. No. 655 dated 13.03.1997, statutory functionaries entrusted with duties on behalf of the State Government are entitled to personal security, and the Petitioner squarely falls within the said category. Despite a specific direction issued by Respondent No.2 vide Memorandum Rc. No. 2067/L&O-III/2024 dated 27.09.2024, Respondent No.4 has failed to take any action to restore the security personnel. Learned counsel finally submits that denial of security has severely restricted the Petitioner’s movement and ability to discharge statutory functions, thereby endangering his life and liberty and infringing Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the withdrawal of security personnel is liable to be set aside and the Petitioner is entitled to restoration of security in accordance with the applicable Government Orders and guidelines. 4. Learned Government Pleader for Home submits that the action of the respondents in withdrawing the security cover provided to the petitioner is strictly in accordance with law and based on the assessment of threat perception. It is submitted that though the petitioner was earlier involved in Crime No.11 of 2011 under Section 324 IPC, the said case ended in acquittal, and another case registered in Crime No.32 of 2019 under Sections 447 and 506 read with 34 IPC was referred as false. 4 Learned Government Pleader would further submit that pursuant to the representation dated 13.09.2024 made by the Petitioner seeking restoration of 1 + 1 security, the Office of the Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Mangalagiri, duly endorsed the matter to the Superintendent of Police, Kada- pa District, for necessary action. Accordingly, the Superintendent of after get- ting Threat Perception Report, clearly opined that the Petitioner does not face any life threat from any individual or group and that security cover by PSOs is not required. The learned Government Pleader further submits that the Superinten- dent of Police, YSR Kadapa District, also submitted a comprehensive report dated 10.10.2024 to the District Collector, YSR Kadapa District, categorically stating that there is no imminent threat to the life of the Petitioner, who is pre- sently serving as Chairperson of the A.P. State Food Commission, Vijayawa- da, and therefore protection is not necessary. It is also submitted that discreet enquiries conducted by the police au- thorities revealed that the Petitioner is not facing any threat from any individu- als or groups. In the absence of any specific incident or credible threat percep- tion, the continuation of security cover would amount to misuse of public re- sources. Hence, the security provided to the petitioner was withdrawn on 20.07.2024 after due assessment and following established norms. Learned Government Pleader submits that security cover is not a matter of right and can be provided or withdrawn only on the basis of threat percep- tion assessed by competent authorities. Since there is no material to indicate 5 any threat to the life of the Petitioner, the decision of the Respondents is nei- ther arbitrary nor illegal and does not warrant interference by this Hon’ble Court. In support of their contentions, learned Government Pleader for Home has placed reliance on the judgments of Composite High Court of A.P in G.Subas Reddy vs. State of A.P.,& others1, Katasani Rami Reddy vs. Government of A.P and others2, this Court in A.V.Subba Reddy vs. State of A.P3, C.Adinarayana Reddy vs. State of A.P.,4, C.Adinarayana Reddy vs. State of A.P5, Paritala Sunitha vs. State of A.P6, K.Venkata Prasad vs. State of A.P7, K.Venkata Prasad vs. State of A.P8, Bhoomireddy Ramgo- pala Reddy vs. State of A.P9, Ajjuguttu Raghunatha reddy vs. State of A.P10 and Ponnavol Sudhakar Reddy vs. State of A.P11. 5. Admittedly, the Petitioner was appointed as Chairperson of the A.P. State Food Commission under G.O. Ms. No.6, CA, F&CS Department, dated 28.03.2022, in terms of Section 16 of the National Food Security Act, 2013. The material placed on record shows that, in discharge of statutory duties, the Petitioner has been travelling extensively across the State and inspecting various Fair Price Shops, Anganwadi Centres, welfare hostels and other establishments. 1 (1997) 2 ALD 694 (DB) 2 (1998) 3 ALD 488 3 (2021) 2 ALD 643 4 W.A.No.217 of 2020, dated 11.08.2020 5 W.P.No.14445 of 2019, dated 28.04.2020 6 W.P.No. 16540 of 2019, dated 21.11.2019 7 W.A.No.308 of 2019, dated 30.09.2019 8 W.P.No.7871 of 2019, dated 30.07.2019 9 W.P.No.1136 of 2020, dated 23.03.2022 10 W.P.No.9976 of 2019, dated 03.01.2020 11 W.P.No.12881 of 2024, dated 14.10.20204 6 6. It is not in dispute that on the request made by the Petitioner, 1 + 1 security personnel were provided to him by the Government in May, 2023. However, the said security was withdrawn in July, 2024. Though the learned Government Pleader contends that the withdrawal was based on threat perception assessment, it is evident from the record that the Petitioner continues to hold a statutory post and is required to discharge duties involving extensive field movement. 7. It is settled legal position that security cover is not a matter of right and is ordinarily dependent upon threat perception. However, at the same time, when a statutory functionary discharges duties on behalf of the State Government and was earlier extended security, withdrawal of the same ought to be supported by cogent reasons and balanced against the nature of duties and official status of the incumbent. 8. Considering the totality of circumstances, including the post held by the Petitioner, the nature of statutory duties discharged by him, the fact that 1 + 1 security was earlier provided by the Government, and in the interest of ensuring effective discharge of official functions, this Court is of the considered view that restoration of 1 + 1 security personnel would meet the ends of justice. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the Respondents to restore 1 + 1 security personnel to the Petitioner forthwith, preferably within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the Respondents are at liberty to review the security 7 arrangement periodically in accordance with law and established guidelines. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:04.02.2026 Dinesh 8 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.25543 of 2024 Dt.04.02.2026 Dinesh