Dhiraj Singh Thakur, CJ.

1. The present Writ Appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 02.05.2025, passed in W.P.No.25947 of 2024.

2. Briefly stated, the material facts are as under:

The petitioner/respondent herein challenges the action of withdrawing his security (2+2) with effect from 18.07.2024 and sought a mandamus by way of writ petition to the respondents to consider his representation, dated 18.07.2024, and further to restore the security and continue the same.

3. Mr. K. Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/respondent herein, had highlighted the fact that the petitioner was facing actual threat to his life and it was only on account of the threat perception having been recognised by the appellants herein that security had been provided from 1985 onwards till 18.07.2024 and that the security cover was withdrawn only when he had lost the assembly election. It is submitted that the petitioner's father along with six family members were hacked to death in broad daylight while travelling in a bus and further that the petitioner’s brother too was killed by rival groups.

4. The stand of the appellants/official respondents in the writ petition was that the incident with regard to hacking of the family members of the petitioner has occurred forty years ago and thereafter no incident had been reported. It was stated by Mr. Dammalapati Srinivas, the learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Andhra Pradesh, that there is a comprehensive mechanism for assessment of threat perception as is prescribed under G.O.Rt.No.655, dated 13.03.1997, which has been followed scrupulously. It is stated that the issue was considered at the level of the unit officer as also at the apex level by the Security Review Committee, both of which, after considering relevant materials, had come to a conclusion that there was no threat as on date which would require providing security to the petitioner.

5. We have been shown the relevant report. We find that there is nothing perverse with the assessment with regard to threat perception by the appellants. In any case, the direction by the learned single Judge in the judgment and order impugned was only to a limited extent that security be provided to the petitioner on payment basis till such time the threat perception is reviewed by the Security Review Committee on merits and orders are passed in that regard.

6. The needful having been done and the Security Review Committee having also opined that there is no threat perception to the petitioner, we feel that no further directions are required to be issued in the present case.

7. The issues with regard to how the threat perception is evaluated and the limitations of the High Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India had also been considered in judgment and order, dated 24.11.2025, passed in W.A.No.825 of 2025, wherein, it was held as under:

                  “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.

                  ...

                  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.”

8. Be that as it may, the present writ appeal is allowed only for statistical purposes. No costs.

                  Consequently, connected miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.