ORDER : HARINATH.N, J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in withdrawing 1+1 personal security officers on 20.07.2024 and seeks a direction to the respondents to restore the security officers to the petitioner. In that regard the petitioner submitted a representation dated 17.03.2025, which is yet to be considered by the respondents. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner hails from a family which is politically active and the petitioner’s father and mother were elected as Sarpanch of Velpula Village. It is submitted that the mother of petitioner served as a Sarpanch of the village for almost twenty years. The petitioner and his wife were also elected Mandal Prajaparishad. The petitioner’s wife was also nominated as Chairman of Zilla Grandhalaya in the year 2020. She was also nominated as President of YSRCP Mahila Wing for Kadapa District. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is facing threat from his political and business opponents and on account of the threat to the family of the petitioner, he has shifted his children to Bangalore for safety and educational purposes in the year 2023. It is also submitted that the petitioner is also a Contractor executing several works for corporate companies as well as public sector undertakings. It is submitted that the petitioner has submitted income tax returns showing considerable income. On account of the petitioner achieving success in his business ventures the political opponents and others opposing the petitioner in Kadapa District were holding out threats of elimination. The petitioner submitted a representation to the government in the month of July, 2020. Accordingly, the petitioner was extended 1+1 security since then. However, on 20.07.2024, the personal security was withdrawn without issuing any notice by the respondents. 4. In this regard, the petitioner approached the Superintendent of Police, Kadapa and appraised him of the threats faced by the petitioner and requested for restoration of the security. It was also informed to the Superintendent of Police that the petitioner was forced to shift his family to Bangalore unable to cope up with the constant threats. The petitioner submitted representations on 17.03.2025 and 19.03.2025 requesting for restoration of the security to the petitioner. In his representation he has stated various events which are indicating grave danger to the petitioner’s life. The petitioner submitted representations on 17.03.2025 and 19.03.2025 requesting for restoration of the security to the petitioner. In his representation he has stated various events which are indicating grave danger to the petitioner’s life. A specific incident of a group of assailants attempting to attack the petitioner in January, 2025 near the mining site was also referred to in the representation. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that G.O.Rt.No.655, HOME (SC.B) Department, dated 13.03.1997 provides for extension of temporary security cover to also those who do not fall under the definition of constitutional functionaries, statutory functionaries, visiting dignitary etc., It is submitted that the threat perception report prepared by the police is without truly considering the circumstances and basing on the Security Review Committee meeting 16.07.2024, the respondents have withdrawn the security cover to the petitioner. 6. It is submitted that there is no case pending against the petitioner, as such, the applicability of Government Order (GO) in so far as the petitioner is concerned cannot be doubted with. It is submitted that the 4 th respondent is not inclined to extend the security to the petitioner at the behest of an external force. This Court on 09.04.2025 directed the 4 th respondent to restore the 1+1 security to the petitioner pending disposal of the writ petition. 7. It is submitted that though there is a direction from this Court, the 4 th respondent has not complied with the directions of this Court and as such the petitioner has filed contempt case vide CC.No.1409 of 2025 alleging willful violation of the orders of this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after filing of the contempt case, a stay vacate petition was filed. It is also submitted that the contempt case would have to be decided first as the respondents have not complied with the orders of this Court. 8. It is submitted that the respondents have filed WA.No.541 of 2025 and the learned Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.05.2025 observed that the writ petition was also listed on 05.05.2025 and that counter affidavit was not filed by the appellants along with the latest report. 8. It is submitted that the respondents have filed WA.No.541 of 2025 and the learned Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.05.2025 observed that the writ petition was also listed on 05.05.2025 and that counter affidavit was not filed by the appellants along with the latest report. The learned Division Bench without going into the merits of the case disposed off the writ appeal by observing that the learned Single Judge would have to consider whether all aspects in the representation of the petitioner have been adequately considered by the security agencies in greater detail. The learned Division Bench also observed that since the issue of the security is sensitive issue it needs to be gone into minute details. The writ appeal was disposed off directing the respondents to place their view point in greater detail before this Court. 9. The matter could not reach on 05.05.2025 and it is submitted that the petitioner had sought permission for filing contempt case during the summer vacation for the Court. It is also submitted that on the day when the permission was sought for filing the contempt case, the counter in the writ petition was served on the counsel for the petitioner through whatsapp by the office of the Government Pleader. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 4 th respondent is not acting in accordance with law and is succumbing to the political pressures and denying grant of personal security to the petitioner to appease them. 10. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the state submits that as on the date of filing of the counter one case is pending, as such G.O.Rt.655 cannot be made applicable to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner is not a public representative, as such, G.O.Rt.No.655 cannot be made applicable. It is also submitted that there has not been a single complaint filed by the petitioner after 20.07.2024 after withdrawing of the security cover. It is also submitted that the petitioner was residing at Bangalore along with his children. 11. It is also submitted that the police have prepared a threat perception report which is handed over to this Court in a sealed cover. The threat perception report is prepared duly taking into all the ground reports and all issues were duly considered. It is also submitted that the petitioner was residing at Bangalore along with his children. 11. It is also submitted that the police have prepared a threat perception report which is handed over to this Court in a sealed cover. The threat perception report is prepared duly taking into all the ground reports and all issues were duly considered. It is submitted that this Court can peruse the threat perception report submitted and dismissed the writ petition as it was found that there was no necessity for extending the security cover to the petitioner as there is no threat for the petitioner from any corner. 12. It is also submitted that extension of security to the petitioner at the cost of the state is not possible as it is not the social obligation of the state. The petitioner has filed reply to the counter and submits that there are no cases pending against the petitioner and two cases which were filed against the petitioner ended up in acquittal and one case was quashed by this Court on 25.06.2024. It is submitted that the respondent has also stated in the counter that the petitioner had shifted his family to Bangalore, however, the fact remains that the petitioner had to shift his children to Bangalore unable to cope up with the constant threats and that he could not risk exposing the children to life threats. 13. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the State. Perused the material on record and also perused the threat perception reports. 14. On perusal of threat perception report dated 18.04.2025, it is evident that the threat perception report is prepared on the enquiry report dated 16.04.2025 submitted by Inspector of Police, RK Vally Circle and it is stated in the report that the petitioner is not facing any threat from any corner at any point of time. The report is not comprehensive and there is no mention about from when the petitioner is residing at Bangalore and under what circumstances the petitioner had shift to Bangalore. Threat perception report is not static. It is a dynamic concept and there could be drastic change in circumstances within a few weeks. 15. This Court in WP.No.7822 of 2019 had considered the prayer of the petitioner for extension of 1+1 security protection at the expenses of the petitioner therein. Threat perception report is not static. It is a dynamic concept and there could be drastic change in circumstances within a few weeks. 15. This Court in WP.No.7822 of 2019 had considered the prayer of the petitioner for extension of 1+1 security protection at the expenses of the petitioner therein. The facts dealt by the learned single judge in WP.No.7822 of 2019 are similar to the facts of this case. The learned single judge has held that a person may move and interact in different circles in his day to day life such as family circle, friends circle, office circle, business circle, political circle, clubs and associations etc., depending on his status and way of life and he may apprehend threat perception from one or some or all of the aforesaid circles. If the review report contains information that it covered the above said different circles and vouches that there is no threat perception, the Court can conclude that the review committee made an objective assessment of all the facts and circumstances. 16. On the facts of the present case, the threat perception report has evidently not covered the different circles with whom the petitioner interacts. The threat perception report lacks the vital issues which can instill confidence of this Court in concluding that the respondents have conducted a comprehensive exercise before preparing the threat perception report. 17. A person approaching the High Court complaining of threat to his life and praying for extension of security personal would have to be taken seriously by the Court. Any unfortunate incident in the petitioner’s life endangering his life and limb would result in irreparable and irreplaceable damage to his family. 18. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that, considering the active political and business life of the petitioner, the 4 th respondent is hereby directed to extend the previous 1+1 security protection to the petitioner forthwith for a period of three months from the date of this Order at his expense. At the end of the said period, the security review committee shall take stock of all facts and circumstances prevailing at that time and make an objective assessment and furnish its recommendations to the concerned authorities for appropriate decision. 19. With the above direction, writ petition is disposed off. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.