Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Paritala Sreeram vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 15 September, 2025
APHC010106662020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3396]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
WRIT PETITION NO: 6587/2020
Between:
PARITALA SREERAM, S/O. LATE. PARITALA RAVINDRA, AGED 30
YEARS, RESIDING AT VENKATAPURAM VILLAGE RAMAGIRI
MANDAL, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS,
VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ,AMARAVATI, ANDHRA
PRADESH.
3. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ,
INTELLIGENCE AMARAVATI, ANDHRA PRADESH.
4. THE STATE LEVEL SECURITY REVIEW COMMITTEE, AMARAVATI,
ANDHRA PRADESH.
5. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, , ANANTAPURAMU,
ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT.
6. RESERVE INSPECTOR, DISTRICT SECURITY WING,
ANANTAPURAMU, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. SESHADRI GOALLA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME (AP)
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for:
".... a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in scaling down the security cover to the petitioner from 2 + 2 to 1 + 1 which existed prior to 10.02.2020 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and in violation 2 of Principles of natural justice and violation of Article 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to restore the 2 + 2 security cover to the petitioner by declaring the notice dated 11.02.2020 issued by the 6th respondent as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional."
2. Sri Goalla Seshadri, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that there is threat to the family of the Petitioner from the rival groups. Learned counsel would further submit that, the rival groups killed the grandfather of the Petitioner in the year 1975, the uncle of the Petitioner was killed in the year 1980 and the father of the Petitioner and 16 kith and kin were also killed by the rival groups. It is further submitted that, considering the threat to the family of the Petitioner, the Government provided 2 + 2 security to the Petitioner, but the same was scaled down to 1 + 1 security. Inspite of the representation made by the Petitioner for restoration of the earlier security, the same has not been considered. Learned counsel would finally submit that, in view of the past incidents and the life threats to the Petitioner, 2 + 2 security may be restored.
3. Sri V.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, would submit that, the security provided to the Petitioner was reviewed periodically and having found that there is no significant or high- level threat to the Petitioner, the Security Review Committee held that the current provision of 1 + 1 security is adequate for the Petitioner.
4. In the light of the incidents occurred in the family of the Petitioner, regarding the murders of his grandfather, paternal uncle, father and 16 kith and kin, the Government has earlier provided 2 + 2 security to the Petitioner. However, the same was reduced to 1 + 1 security. In view of the background 3 of the family of the Petitioner, it is apposite to restore the earlier 2 + 2 security to the Petitioner.
5. Considering the submissions and in view of the periodical incidents of murders occurred in the family of the Petitioner, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the concerned Authorities to provide 2 + 2 security to the Petitioner. 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:15.09.2025 Dinesh 4 HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.6587 of 2020 Dt.15.09.2025 Dinesh