Uttarakhand High CourtJeewan Singh Rawat vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 29 May, 2017Author:V.K. BistBench:V.K. Bist,Alok SinghIN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
             AT NAINITAL
             Criminal Writ Petition No. 753 of 2017
Jeewan Singh Rawat                                    ......Petitioner.
                          Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others                       ...... Respondents.
Present:
Mr. Azmeen, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. D.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General assisted by Mr. N.S. Kanyal, Brief Holder
for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent Nos. 1 to 4 .
Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, Advocate for respondent Nos. 5 to 8.
                               JUDGMENTCoram: Hon'ble V.K. Bist, J.Hon'ble Alok Singh, J.Dated: 29th May, 2017
V.K. BIST, J. (Oral)

       Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the
following reliefs:-"I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
       mandamus directing to the respondents to provide
       adequate protection to the Petitioner and his staff as
       well as security to the liquor shop being run by the
       Petitioner under a valid license at Polysheete,
       Haldwani, District Nainital and to ensure that no
       hindrance is caused by any miscreants or antisocial
       elements led by private Respondents, while running
       the shop by the Petitioner.II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
       mandamus directing to the official respondents to take
       legal action against the private Respondents against
       the nuisance being created by them."When the matter was listed on 18.05.2017, this Court,
while issuing notice to respondent Nos. 5 to 8, directed the
respondent No. 3 to provide protection to the petitioner and
 his employees sitting in the shop, as long as they have
license, as against respondent Nos. 5 to 8.Today, learned Additional Advocate General submits
that in compliance of the order dated 18.05.2017, necessary
protection was provided to the petitioner.                He further
submits that in future too necessary protection will be
provided to the petitioner as and when required.Mr.   Pradeep    Hairiya,      learned     counsel    for   the
respondent Nos. 5 to 8 submits that respondent Nos. 5 to 8
neither caused any harm to the petitioner nor they intend to
cause any harm to the petitioner in future.Recording the submissions of learned Additional
Advocate General and the learned counsel for the private
respondents, we close the writ petition.The writ petition is closed.(Alok Singh, J.)                   (V.K. Bist, J.)
               29.05.2017                         29.05.2017
Shiv