JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondents. This Writ Petition is filed with the prayer, which reads as under: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is hereby prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ Of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents as unconstitutional, illegal, contrary to the principles of natural justice and in utter violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, consequently directing the respondents 1 to 4 to ensure the safety of the petitioner whose life is endangered by the vengeful acts of Respondent No.5 by granting round-the-clock foolproof security or any appropriate protection which the Hon’ble Court deems fit and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. The petitioner herein is Assistant Commissioner of Police, presently under suspension. Earlier, he worked as Officer-on-Special-duty at Viakarabad in Ranga Reddy District in the A.P. State Police Department. Against the petitioner, a case is registered on 10.11.2011, in Crime No.28/ACB-CIU-HYD/2011, for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Another case is also registered against him in Crime No.30/ACB-CIU-HYD/2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 472 and 473 r/w 34 of IPC. In this writ petition, precisely, it is the grievance of the petitioner that he is having threat to his life. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, certain allegations are made by the petitioner against respondent No.5 herein. To support the relief sought for in the writ petition on the threat to his life, there are no specific allegations. Based on the vague allegations made against respondent No.5, this Court cannot come to any conclusion that there is threat to the life of petitioner. In any event, if there is any threat to his life, it is for the petitioner to approach the competent authority. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.291 of 1995 and batch, it is stated that the Government has framed guidelines in G.O.Rt.No.655, dated 13.03.1997, for providing personal security. In any event, if there is any threat to his life, it is for the petitioner to approach the competent authority. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.291 of 1995 and batch, it is stated that the Government has framed guidelines in G.O.Rt.No.655, dated 13.03.1997, for providing personal security. It is stated that as per the said guidelines, if there is any threat to his life, the petitioner has to approach the Unit Officer. Even according to the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner did not make any representation about his apprehension of threat to his life, to any of the authorities as per the guidelines notified by the Government. In normal course, he has to approach the Unit Officer, but in view of the allegations made against respondent No.5, and further, keeping in mind the guidelines issued by the Government in G.O.Rt.No.655, dated 13.03.1997, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, permitting the petitioner to make a representation to the learned Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, the 3rd respondent herein, indicating the apprehension of threat to his life, within a period of one week from today, and if any such representation is filed, the 3rd respondent is directed to get examine the threat perception against the petitioner and to take appropriate decision on such representation as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.