ORDER
1. The petitioner is Managing Partner of M/s. Urvasi Enterprises. The said firm is running three theatres i.e.
Ramba, Urvasi and Menaka Theatres in Rajahmundry. There were certain differences between the petitioner and among other partners. This ted to a serious quarrels and altercations between Sri Kurma Rao and his sons on one side and the petitioner and his group on the other side. It is even alleged that on 28-4-1996 the opposite group assaulted him causing grievous injuries and the same was reported to the Police, The petitioner’s weapon bearing Arms Licence No.222/l/RMY was deposited with the Police as per the orders of the Government. When he tried to get the gun released, his opponent filed a writ petition which was dismissed. Thereafter, the District Magi strafe/Collector, East Godavari also recommended for release of the weapon to him. However, the weapon was not released to him.
2. The petitioner states that there is a serious threat to his life, by the opposite group. Therefore, as there is serious life threat perception, he made a representation to the 3rd respondent to provide a gunman as a security to his personal life and liberty. As no orders are passed by the Superintendent of Police, he approached this Court by filing WP No.1944 of 1998 on 16-7-1998. This Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the Superintendent of Police to dispose or” the representation of the petitioner dated 16-6-1998 within two weeks and provide a gunman immediately. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent addressed a letter on 4-3-1999 to the petitioner to deposit amount for providing gunman. Gunman was provided and he was withdrawn by an order dated 1-4-1999 without assigning any reasons. The petitioner states that due to visit of V.I.P. dignitaries in connection with the centenary celebrations of Rajahmundry Bar, the Police require constables and therefore the gunman was withdrawn. Be that as it may, the present position is that the petitioner is without gunman. As there is serious threat perception to his life, the petitioner approached this
Court praying for a writ of mandamus declaring non-providing of security is violative of Article 21 and for consequential direction to the respondents to provide gunman.
3. After receiving the notice, the 3rd respondent filed detailed counter. In brief the counter states that no doubt there are serious mis-understandings among the partners. They are only simple property disputes. There is no threat or danger to the life of the petitioner or to his family members. Therefore, there is no necessity to provide a gunman. The 3rd respondent’s report is based on enquiries. If any report is called for from intelligence sources, the same is not enclosed to the counter-affidavit.
The point for consideration is:
Whether the respondents have committed any illegality in not providing a gunman security to the petitioner?
4. In Subas Reddy v. State of A.P., 1997 (2) ALD 694, a Division Bench of this Court considered the question of providing Police security to private persons. The Division Bench also formulated guide-lines. While coming to the conclusion that it is the duty of the State to provide security to protect the life and liberty of the citizens guaranteed under Article 21 ofthe Constitution. The Division Bench relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, . The Supreme Court in the said judgment observed as follows:
“No Slate Government worth the name can tolerate such threats by one group of persons to another group of persons; it is duty-bound to protect the threatened group from such assaults and if it fails to do so, it will fail to perform its constitutional as well as statutory obligations. Those giving such threats
would be liable to be dealt in accordance with law.”
5. After the judgment of the Division Bench in Subas Reddy’s case (supra) the Government of A.P. issued detailed orders. These orders deal with the guide-lines to be followed by the Unit Officers like the 3rd respondent. Now the petitioner contends that his case falls within the parameters of the ratio of the Division Bench in Subas Reddy’s case (supra) as well as the guidelines issued by the Government.
6. It is to be seen that when this Court passed order on 16-7-1998 in WP No.19644 of 1998 directing the 3rd respondent to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 16-6-1998 and also provide gunman security, it is not clear whether the Superintendent of Police has disposed of the application and passed orders or not in accordance with law. In the absence of any averment this Court has to conclude that the direction issued by this Court earlier was not followed. Indeed, a gunman was provided in compliance with the other portion of the order dated 16-7-1998. Even that gunman was withdrawn due to various reasons, though the petitioner stales that he was deposited the amount which was requested by the 3rd respondent. Therefore there is situation where the 3rd respondent has not considered the request for provision of gunman except filing a counter before this Court that there is no danger to the life of the petitioner and his family members. It would be appropriate to direct the 3rd respondent to consider the representation dated 16-6-1998 filed by the petitioner immediately. It is also open to the petitioner to again file another application or representation before the 3rd respondent giving his sense of life threat perception as existing to-day.
7. That is not the end of the case. The learned Counsel for the petitioner
insists that without a licenced weapon and without Police security, he is not able to move freely and he has to manage a huge complex consisting of three theaters besides other business. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that pending consideration of the representation of the petitioner, appropriate orders may be given to the 3rd respondent to provide gunman security as was done in July, 1998.
8. I have considered the submission with seriousness as it would demand. The question is whether this Court is competent to order gunman security while directing the Unit Officer to pass appropriate orders on the representation made by the petitioner?
9. In Subas Reddy’s case (supra) the Division Bench of this Court considered this aspect and ruled as follows:
“Coming to the Court in situations when the Court has no version except the version of the applicant for the need for any special protection will only result in the Court asking the petitioner or the applicant to approach the competent authority at the first instance. There are, however, complaints in many cases when applications are made but they are not promptly responded to and thus before the application is able to get any order on the application for special protection, the threat stands executed. There are instances and reports to the said effect and there is no denial to the fact that there are some situations in which delays in making appropriate orders for protection have resulted even in killing of the person seeking protection. We do not wish to be harsh when we state curtly that no one can deny that there can be no more urgent application to be ordered than an application for protection to life and if such an application is preferred before the competent authority and response
upon the same is delayed, it would only show that the authority concerned has shown no regard to life which is so valuable that the Constitution has chosen to guarantee, along with liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, that no one shall be deprived of life or liberty, save in accordance with the prescribed procedure of law. There shall be good reason in any case of delays by any competent authority in disposing of such applications of the applicant to make a complaint about the delay before the superior authority and even to move this Court for appropriale directions to the competent authority to act strictly in accordance with law.”
10. Therefore, the law is settled that in appropriate cases, this Court can order that a citizen be given Police security pending consideration of other questions by the Police Authorities. In this case, this Court by earlier order already directed that a gunman will be provided. That was complied with and the gunman was withdrawn later. Therefore, I feel it appropriate to direct the 3rd respondent to provide one gunman for a period of four weeks from to-day. In the meanwhile, the 3rd respondent shall dispose of the representation dated 16-6-1998 or any new representation made by the petitioner. With this direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.