IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 599 of 2009 Dr. Ravindra Nath Roy … Petitioner Vs State of Uttarakhand & others … Respondents Sri Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Nandan Arya, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondents Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to ensure adequate and necessary protection to the petitioner in order to protect his life and liberty from the anti-social element of Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Heard Sri Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Nandan Arya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he is an active social worker, devoted to the welfare of the refugees for Bangladesh. Some Bhumafias in collusion with some other anti-social elements in transit camp, Rudrapur started making encroachment upon the land allotted the refugees of Bangladesh. The petitioner protested it with the result that he was attached by the anti-social elements. The petitioner approached the police authorities but no one paid any heed. Hence, he has left with no other alternative remedy but to approach this Court for providing him adequate security. The State has filed the counter affidavit and respondent no. 3, SSP, Udham Singh Nagar in the counter affidavit has pleaded 2 in paragraph 11 that in compliance of the order passed by this Hon’ble High Court as well as on the basis of the enquiry report, the protection to the life and liberty of the petitioner is being looked after by the local police. It has further been pleaded that in case the petitioner requires personal security, he is to adopt the proper procedure for the same. The District Magistrate, respondent no. 2 has also taken the plea in the counter affidavit that the application of the petitioner, contained in Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition, when was received by him, the same was sent to SSP, Udham Singh Nagar for taking necessary action. 4. The petitioner in the rejoinder affidavit filed by him on 20.10.2009 has stated in paragraph 11 that he does not require any bodyguard, rather he requires protection from the anti-social elements who have caused injuries to him and have held out threat to his life and liberty. 5. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the material available before us, we are of the view that in case the petitioner has any grievance against any of the anti-social elements who caused injuries to him, he may take the legal recourse available to him under the law. If it is taken into account that the police is not taking any action on the report lodged by him, the remedy available to the petitioner is to file criminal complainant before the court concerned. However, merely on this ground that the authorities are not taking any action on his complaint, the State or its agencies cannot be directed to provide the security to the petitioner unless the matter is probed into by the State agency as to whether the petitioner is in dire need of adequate security or not. 3 6. From the perusal of the writ petition and the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner as well as the counter affidavit filed by the State and its officers, it appears to us that the petitioner himself is not clear as to what measure is to be adopted in his case. On the one hand, he is denying the personal guard to be provided to him and asking for protection to his personal life and liberty, while on the other hand, he is saying that the authorities are not taking any action against the anti-social elements. Under these circumstances, we think that the petitioner should approach either the court or the State agencies with a clear assertion as to what is required in his case under the aforesaid circumstances. We do not find any justification to issue a writ of mandamus to the respondents for providing the adequate security to the petitioner. 7. The petition being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed. However, we make it clear that in case if the petitioner moves any representation to the authorities concerned at Udham Singh Nagar for providing him adequate and necessary security in order to safeguard his personal life and liberty, the authorities concerned, after receiving the said representation and assessing the entire situation, may proceed further to take necessary action in this regard. 8. With the aforesaid observation, the petition is disposed of finally. (Dharam Veer, J.) (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 07.11.2009 ASWAL/Prabodh