IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 583 of 2008 Manoj Narain Agarwal, S/o Late Sri Karmendra Narian Agarwal, R/o 502, Adishwar Apartment 34, Fiorj Shah Road, New Delhi. ………….Applicant. Versus State of Uttarakhand, through Secretary Department of Home Affairs, Dehradun and others ………….Respondents. Sri S.P.S. Panwar, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Arvind Vashistha, Advocate for the petitioenr, Sri G.S. Sandhu, Government Advocate for the State Sri T.A. Khan, Advocate for respondents no. 4-6. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents no. 1 to 3 provide at least five armed guards for protection of petitioner’s property and one gunner for protection of his life for a period of six months. (2) Heard learned counsel for the parties. (3) Brief facts of the case are that an Original Suit No. 56 of 2008 is pending before the civil court which was instituted by respondents no.4 to 6. Aggrieved by some order passed in said suit a Writ Petition No. 1007 (M/S) of 2008 appears to have been filed by the respondents no. 4 to 6, which was disposed of by the Hon’ble Chief Justice vide his order dated 19.06.2008 and modified on 24.06.2008. In said order the Hon’ble Chief Justice directed the petitioners (present respondents no. 4 to 6) to approach the Superintendent of Police, Udham Singh Nagar, for providing protection and police assistance to them. Thereafter, another Crl. Writ Petition No. 527 (M/B) of 2008 was filed by respondents no. 4 to 6 for extension of the Police protection provided to them for a period of six months. That writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 18.07.2008 extending the police protection already provided till the date fixed in the civil suit i.e. 24th July 2008 (today). (4) Now Manoj Narian Agarwal (present petitioner) has sought similar relief by filing the present writ petition. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, we are not inclined to pass any orders as to the protection of property or the person of the petitioner as it is for the civil court to see that who is the person in possession of the property and what directions are required to be passed for protecting the property. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that petitioner Manoj Narain Agarwal is not party in the civil suit. However, it is admitted to the parties that he is brother of respondents no. 4 to 6, to whom protection was granted for a temporary period till the suit is taken up by the court on he date fixed. (5) For the reasons as discussed above, this writ petition is dismissed summarily with the observation that petitioner may approach for redressal of his grievances to the appropriate authority i.e. Superintendent of Police, Udham Singh Nagar. (Interim Relief Application No. 4609 of 2008 also stands dismissed). (Dharam Veer, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 27.07.2008 NS