Judgment : 1. At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare proceedings dated 25.08.2007 of respondent No. 1, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. The petitioner claims to be an active member of a political party in Allagadda and Nandyal Assembly segments and staunch follower of Ex-Parliament Member Sri B.V. Nagi Reddy. According to him, on account of the factions in the area there is imminent danger to his life and limb from the rival groups of Gangula Prathapa Reddy and B. Rampulla Reddy apart from Naxalite organizations. The petitioner narrated certain instances pertaining to hurling of bombs on the vehicle in which he was traveling in the year 1998. He also pleaded that he was granted armed licence in the year 1992 considering the threat to his life, that he was granted personal security by providing gunmen in the year 1996 and that the same was withdrawn in the year 1998. On the petitioner’s representation, the security was restored to him and that when the same was withdrawn in the year 1999, he filed Writ Petition No. 26091 of 1999. The petitioner also pleaded that there was increase in Naxal activity in Nallamala forest and the Naxalites blasted his theatre in the year 2003 for which a criminal case was registered. As there was a dispute regarding the number of gunmen to be provided and the cost of payment for such gunmen, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 25849 of 2005 in which he was unsuccessful, as this Court held that he was bound to pay the charges for two gunmen even though one person was provided at any given time as security. By the impugned order passed on 25.08.2007, respondent No. 1 withdrew the security to the petitioner on the ground that no threat perception existed to continue the same. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool District, it is inter alia stated that the petitioner is having a criminal background and that he was involved in as many as 13 cases all of which ended in his acquittal. The respondents relied on G.O. Rt. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool District, it is inter alia stated that the petitioner is having a criminal background and that he was involved in as many as 13 cases all of which ended in his acquittal. The respondents relied on G.O. Rt. No. 655, dated 13.03.1997 and contended that it is not desirable to provide personal security to the persons with criminal background because such persons would threaten others and indulge in criminal activities unhindered with the aid of protection provided to them by the State. It is also pleaded that it is not possible for the State Government to provide police protection to all its people, that it can secure the safety of the society at large at macro level by effective maintenance of law and order through its police force and that the limited police force available should be utilized for the protection of interest of public at large and not a specific individual. It is also stated that at present the petitioner is not having any threat from his rivals, as the faction is dormant in Allagadda Assembly Constituency area and that none of the extremists are giving warnings or paper statements against the petitioner. It is further averred that at present the petitioner is residing at Nandyal town moving freely and doing his business, that the extremist movement has come down in Kurnool district and that after reviewing the threat perception by the Additional DGP (Intelligence), in his proceedings dated 05.01.2008, the decision to withdraw the security was taken. 5. No reply affidavit has been filed controverting the above averments contained in the counter affidavit. 6. The State Government issued G.O. Rt. No. 655, dated 13.03.1997 laying down guidelines for providing security to private persons. The said G.O. has divided the persons into 6 categories. The petitioner falls under the category of “Private Persons”. Clause (3) of the G.O. enumerated the general guidelines for providing security and it is envisaged therein that in case of a private person, individual security on threat perception can be provided only on advance payment basis subject to the availability of manpower with the unit officer concerned. Sub-clauses (6) and (7) of Clause (C) read as under: “A person having criminal background should not be given security except when the criminal case is closed or acquitted against him. Sub-clauses (6) and (7) of Clause (C) read as under: “A person having criminal background should not be given security except when the criminal case is closed or acquitted against him. Further, in case there is a genuine threat from naxalites of PWG or in case he is holding public office, then specific permission from IGP Intelligence, who is the Nodal Authority should be taken before providing him. In respect of factional groups, security should not be given to the affected parties since provision of security to one faction and ignoring requests of other faction is not proper and wherever it is felt necessary to give necessary to give security to such persons, the reasons for doing so shall be recorded by the competent authority.” Clause (E) provides that a Security Review Committee comprising Joint Director, S.I.B., Deputy Director, S.I.B., D.I.G (Security), D.I.G. (Intelligence), Joint Secretary (Protocol) and I.G.P. (Grey Hounds) as members and I.G.P. (Intelligence) as Nodal Authority will meet twice a year in order to review the threat perception. From the facts borne out by the record, it is clear that the petitioner claims to be belonging to a faction in the area and was involved in as many as 13 criminal cases. Irrespective of the fact that all those cases ended in his acquittal, it cannot be gain said that the petitioner has a criminal background apart from the fact that on his own showing he is part of one of the two factions. 7. The guidelines contained in the abovementioned G.O. clearly envisage that persons with criminal background and those, who are part of factional groups, are generally not entitled to personal security. The exceptions carved out under the said G.O., are that if criminal cases were closed resulting in the acquittal of the person or when there is a genuine threat from the naxalites, then security should be provided to such persons. In the impugned order, it is specifically stated that on a review of threat perception, it is found that the petitioner is leading a peaceful life and moving freely without any threat from his rival, as the faction is dormant in the Allagadda Assembly Constituency area and that extremist groups are not giving any warnings or paper statements against the petitioner. Even if there was a serious threat perception in the 90’s, which prompted the State to provide personal security to the petitioner, he cannot claim continuance of the same without regard to the changed circumstances. In his affidavit, the petitioner has not referred to any instances that have taken place after 2003. 8. As noted above, in the counter affidavit it is specifically stated that the factions in the area have subsided and the activity of naxalites has abated. In this situation, I am unable to accept the plea of the petitioner that the respondents have not properly appreciated the threat perception against him. The very fact that no incident has taken place after the year 2003 would itself prove that there is a marked change in the situation in the area. The burden is on the petitioner to show that the threat perception, which existed at one point of time, is continuing and in the absence of any material filed in support thereof by him, I am of the opinion that the respondents are justified in coming to the conclusion that the threat perception against the petitioner does not subsist warranting continuance of the security. Before closing the case, as the context of the case warranted, I have felt the necessity of delving into the State policy of provision of security to the factionists and persons with criminal background. 9. Though Article 21 of the Constitution of India ordains that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law, no person can claim as of right that the State should provide him with personal security to ensure that his life is protected. 10. As rightly averred by the Superintendent of Police, the philosophy of the State should be to maintain law and order at a macro level, rather than concentrating on safety of certain individuals in the society. Perhaps, more fundamental question that needs to be addressed is whether it is desirable to provide personal security to the persons, who are part of factions with long criminal record. In my considered opinion, the answer is in the negative. As stated in the counter, provision of personal security will bolster their activities to the detriment of the society at large. In my considered opinion, the answer is in the negative. As stated in the counter, provision of personal security will bolster their activities to the detriment of the society at large. A person, who has chosen violence as his way of life and who does not have any value for human life, has no right to plead that the State should take special measures to protect his life from his rivals. The threat perception, if any faced by such a person, is of his own making as it is his actions which evoke reactions from his rival group. 11. Indeed, in my opinion, sub-clause (6) of Clause (C) extracted above is subversive of rule of law. When the State has realized that persons with criminal record should not be given personal security, there is no rationale in providing them with security after their acquittal in criminal cases. By his mere acquittal a person’s criminal background will not get suddenly obliterated and he will not turn into a saint overnight. While our criminal jurisprudence presumes every accused to be innocent until his guilt is proved, the stark reality is that persons committing heinous crimes are let off unscathed as the witnesses are won over and made to turn hostile. To presume them innocents only on account of their acquittal would be overlooking ground realities. Protection of such persons would only help them to carry on their criminal activities unhindered under security cover. To my mind, provision of security to them by the State violates the right of the public at large under Article 21 of the Constitution as they face constant threat from these forces. It is therefore necessary that the State Government review its policy contained in sub-clause (6) of Clause (C). Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP. No. 24074 of 2007 and WVMP. No. 1015 of 2008 are also dismissed.