M MOHAN BABU Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner one Mr. Mohan Babu, a popular Cine Artist and a former member of the Rajya Sabha filed this writ petition questioning the order passed by the third respondenl in letter No. SB. No. 121/XI- CTR/2000 dated 31-7-2000 rejecting his request stating as under: The threat perception in your case was reviewed by the Security Review Committee and decided to withdraw the security, as there is no threat to your life from CPI (ML) PWG or any other known source. Therefore, the security cover provided to you is henceforth withdrawn. For your information. Supdt. of Police Chittoor 31-7-2000

(2.) From the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is seen that initially the petitioner joined the politics in the year 1982 inspired by late Sri N.T. Rama Rao and he became the member of the Rajya Sabha in the year 1995. During the split-up of Telugu Desham Party, he joined the Hon'ble Chief Minister. Thereafter, he developed some rift with Mr. Shankar Reddy who is the Telugu Desham Party President and also with the Honourable Chief Minister, and he parted his company with them Thereafter while the police registered criminal cases against the petitioner as well as Sankar Reddy on the basis of the complaints given by them, some disputes concerning Heritage Foods between the petitioner and the Chief Minister family are pending. After expiry of the term of Rajya Sabha Membership of the petitioner, the State withdrew the security on 10-6-2000. Questioning that order, the petitioner filed W.P.No. 10079 of 2000 and this Court seemed to have disposed of the said writ petition at the admission stage after hearing the learned Government Pleader to consider the threat perception report in the light of the guidelines given in G.O.Rt.No. 655, Home (SC-B) Department dated 13-3-97 and pass orders within three- weeks and the State was directed to continue the security to the petitioner for ten more days. After the disposal of the said writ petition, the peti tioner filed a detailed representation on 18-6-2000, wherein he has given reasons for his apprehension that there is threat for his life and requested the second respondent to provide him security cover on the same terms as was provided to him till 10-6-2000. Having considered the representation made by the petitioner, the third respondent in the impugned proceeding informed the petitioner that there is no threat to his life and the State has decided to withdraw the security cover provided to him forthwith. This proceeding has now been assailed in this writ petition by the petitioner on various grounds and we need not refer to all those grounds here, as we are disposing of the writ petition on the ground of non-application of mind by the third respondent, after perusing the entire record in this case. It is not in dispute that the Inspector General of Police i.e., the second respondent is the authority empowered to take a decision with regard to providing security cover as and when people approach the Department seeking security cover. Though in the impugned order, there was no reference about the order passed by the second respondent, on a perusal of the record, we find that the second respondent has in fact taken a decision to withdraw security cover and directed the third respondent to inform the same to the petitioner accordingly. But from the file it is seen that the decision was taken on the basis of the report sent by the Superintendent of Police dated 17-7-2000 and the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Zonal Intelligence, Tirupathi dated 20-7-2000.

(3.) We have gone through the threat perception reports sent by these two officers. The Superintendent of Police, having referred to the expulsion of the petitioner from the Telugu Desham Party, simply jumped to the conclusion that pending of criminal cases registered against the petitioner reflects his notoriety in creating problems to his political rivals and he has referred two Criminal cases in Crime No. 125/99 and 126 of 1999 on the file of K.V.B. Puram Police Station on account of the Election clashes that had taken place in the territorial jurisdiction of those police Stations between the supporters of TDP and Congress-(I) after the petitioner left the place having addressed a election meeting. Admittedly in these two cases, the petitioner was not shown as an accused. In the abstract with regard to crimes pending against the petitioner furnished by the respondents, in the remarks column, it is stated that: