N. N. MATHUR, J. ( 1 ) BY this common order, four petitions being Special Criminal application Nos. 1520/95, 1521/95, 1522/95 and 1523/95, on being transferred by the supreme Court vide order dated 1. 11. 1995, are being disposed of. The petitions filed before the Supreme Court has been treated as petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India before this Court. The petition has been filed by petitioner No. 1-Smt. Snehlata gouti, petitioner No. 2-Ajitkumar Gouti, petitioner No. 3-Kishore Kumar Gouti, petitioner No. 4-Ranjit Mull Gouti. In the said petition the State of Maharashtra, commissioner of Police, Mumbai, State of Gujarat, Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, union Bank of India, Commissioner of Police, Delhi and Union of India have been made party-respondents No. 1 to 7 respectively. At one stage as prayed by the learned Advocate for the petitioners, respondents No. 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 were deleted. However, by a subsequent prayer, the said order was recalled, and therefore, they have continued as respondents. Petitioners have made following prayers:" (1) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, commanding the respondents to take adequate measure to extend protection to the petitioners to save their lives and personal liberty; (2) Issue an appropriate writ, direction or order commanding respondents 2 and 4 to protect the lives and personal liberty of the petitioners as well as their property both at Bombay and Ahmedabed; (3) Issue an appropriate writ, direction or order commanding respondents No. 6 (Commissioner of Police, New Delhi) to extend police protection to the petitioners to go over to Bombay and Ahmedabad, (4) Issue appropriate orders commanding respondent No. 3 to visit the premises of the petitioners at Ahmedabad and make assessments of the loss and damage caused to the petitioners in the incident that took place on the night of 16. 10. 1995; (5) Pass any other order/orders that may be deemed just and necessary in the circumstances of this case, and (6) Award cost of this petition. "it is evident from the reading of the prayer that at the first instance, the petitioners want protection of their lives and personal liberties and secondly they seek protection of their property both at Bombay and Ahmedabad. The third prayer is not pressed. "it is evident from the reading of the prayer that at the first instance, the petitioners want protection of their lives and personal liberties and secondly they seek protection of their property both at Bombay and Ahmedabad. The third prayer is not pressed. Fourth prayer is that respondent No. 3 i. e. State of Gujarat through the Home Secretary be directed to visit the premises of the petitioners at Ahmedabad and make the assessment of loss and damages caused to the petitioners in the incident that took place on the night of 16. 10. 1995. ( 2 ) THE petitioners appears to be a family dealing in the business of jewellery. As per their say they are under the threat of some officers of the Police and Customs departments. It is alleged that at the instance of some anti-social people belonging to the underworld, they are being harrassed by the Department of Enforcement of Foreign exchange. Petitioners have narrated the harrassment since 1984 or even prior to that. As per their say, the started business of bullion merchants and Commission Agents and jewellers in they name and style of "gouti Sons" at Bombay. The say of petitioner No. 4 is that the annual turnover of the business gradually increased to 30 crores in the year 1984. He says that before 1978 he had partnership business at Calcutta. In the year 1984, he was being harrassed by one officer of the Central Excise Department Mr S. N. Thappa. In the year 1989, the petitioner No. 4 incorported a Private Limited Company in the name of M/s Madan Gems (P) Ltd. at Bombay. It is said that in the year 1992, series of raids and searches were made on the new premises of the petitioner by Marine and Preventive wing of the Central Excise department. The say of the petitioner No. 4 is that it was an undue harrassment and in fact no incriminating documents were recovered or found. However, he shifted to Ahmedabad and started a shop in the name "joy Crafts" at 14, doctor House, C. G. Road, Ahmedabad. It is alleged that certain telephone calls were received by the petitioner No. 4 i. e. Ranjit Mull Gouti. It is said that the callers were none else but the police officers. However, he shifted to Ahmedabad and started a shop in the name "joy Crafts" at 14, doctor House, C. G. Road, Ahmedabad. It is alleged that certain telephone calls were received by the petitioner No. 4 i. e. Ranjit Mull Gouti. It is said that the callers were none else but the police officers. It is further alleged that sometime thereafter, 5 persons came to the house of the petitioners at Ahmedabad in a fiat car and started manhandling and abusing them. On raising alarm, his servants and neighbours came to his help and one of them was caught with the car and he was handed over to the police along with the car and a complaint was lodged by the petitioner No. 4. The grievance is that inspite of that no action has been taken by the police. It is also stated that he subsequently came to know that the said person was one Rangaraj Mehta, a member of the underworld gang. The said rangaraj Mehta was subsequently arrested by the police in some other criminal case. The further say of the petitioners is that within one week of the incident, 9 persons again, visited their house at Ahmedabad. It was stated by them that they were sent by the police station Astodia, Ahmedabad. They took away certain gold and silver articles from the petitioners house. A written complaint of the incident was lodged. As the petitioner was receiving the telephone calls, he made certain arrangements with the telephone department on account of which he could control the threatening telephone calls at his residence. He further says that the said Rangaraj Mehta alodged a complaint against the petitioner No. 4 in the Metropolitan Magistrate Court No. 16 at Ahmedabad alleging that the said Rangaraj Merita had given one golden necklace to the petitioner for valuation, but the petitioner had not returned the same. The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail in the said case by the High Court. In para 12 some more allegations have been made. In para 13 it is stated that the petitioner No. 4 had exported certain gold articles with diamond and Emerald stones to M/s. Nisha Jewellers, Bermingham, U. K. and also to M/s. Chemmannur Jewellers, Dubai. They were valued at Rs. 7 lakhs. In para 12 some more allegations have been made. In para 13 it is stated that the petitioner No. 4 had exported certain gold articles with diamond and Emerald stones to M/s. Nisha Jewellers, Bermingham, U. K. and also to M/s. Chemmannur Jewellers, Dubai. They were valued at Rs. 7 lakhs. It is stated that the union Bank of India in that regard has written a confidential letter to the Enforcement department of Foreign Exchange, Government of India making a some false allegation against the petitioners. ( 3 ) IN para 14, the petitioners have stated that on 16. 10. 1995 at about 11. 00 a. m. two persons came to their Princess Street Office and they wanted to meet the petitioner No. 4. The office peon said, that the petitioner No. 4 was available at Chira Bazar shop of petitioner. They reached the Chira Shop along with others. They threatened the employees and telephoned to find out whether the petitioner was available at home. That telephone was attended by petitioner No. 1, wife of the petitioner No. 4. The caller disclosed that he was S. I. Chudavat from Astodia police station, Ahmedabad. When the petitioner No. 1 answered that petitioner No. 4 was not at home, the caller i. e. S. I. Chudavat threatened the petitioner that they have played enough and she was abused in filthy language. In that connection, petitioner No. 1 lodged complaint with Gamdevi police station, Bombay on 19. 10. 1995. In para 15 it is alleged that on 16. 10. 1995 at about 11. 30 a. m. 7-8 persons along with two police officers came to raid the residence of the petitioners. One of the police officers was identified as Mr. Chauhan by some of the neighbours. When they found none of the petitioners was present, they beat up Mr. George, who was one of the servants of the petitioners. Petitioner No. 3 hid himself and he noticed that the Gundas have broken household things and ransacked and took away many valuables worth more than Rs, 5 lakhs and accounts books and registers and left the house after damaging the car. At that time the petitioner No. 4 was at Madurai. It is further stated that the petitioner no. 4, thereafter approached Mr. Bhaskar Mehta, Advocate at Bombay. He advised the petitioners to be careful and take appropriate security measures. At that time the petitioner No. 4 was at Madurai. It is further stated that the petitioner no. 4, thereafter approached Mr. Bhaskar Mehta, Advocate at Bombay. He advised the petitioners to be careful and take appropriate security measures. He also says that he tried to contact the Commissioner of Police, Bombay. Petitioners, thereafter, straigtway filed petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court, on 30. 12. 1995. ( 4 ) ON 12. 12,1996, this Court, (Coram : K. J. Vaidya, J.) noticing the facts of the complaint, advised the petitioner to see the Commissioner of Police and explain their grievance. It was expressed that the Police Commissioner will sympathetically consider the grievance of the petitioners and do the needful at the earliest. Learned APP was also directed to take the convenient time of the Police Commissioner in that regard. It was made clear in the order that so far as the personal as well as the property protection of the petitioners is concerned, the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad can provide the same in respect of property which is situated in Ahmedabad, as long as they are within the limits of Ahmedabad. It was made clear that so far as the property situated at Bombay is concerned, the petitioner may make appropriate application to the Commissioner of police, Bombay. ( 5 ) I have heard Mr. N. S. Sheth, learned Advocate at length. On interruption of petitioner No. 4, He was permitted to aruge himself. He has not been able to give details of tile incidents referred in the petitions. The allegations are vague. It does not appear if the petitioners approached higher authorities in the respective Departments. There are no allegations of malafides against higher authorities. Confining to the incident of 16. 10. 1995, it does appear from the petition if the petitioners filed the FIR. The petitioner no. 4 arguing in person says that the entire police was against him and it was not possible to go to the Police Station for filing the FIR. As per the say of the petitioner, he received the information of the incident at Madurai. Thereafter, after reaching Bombay he contacted the Lawyer and tried to contact the Police Commissioner, Bombay. Thereafter, he left for Delhi and filed the petition before the Supreme Court. This conduct of the petitioners is contrary to ordinary human conduct. As per the say of the petitioner, he received the information of the incident at Madurai. Thereafter, after reaching Bombay he contacted the Lawyer and tried to contact the Police Commissioner, Bombay. Thereafter, he left for Delhi and filed the petition before the Supreme Court. This conduct of the petitioners is contrary to ordinary human conduct. As per the say of the petitioners, their house was ransacked by Gundas and Valuables worth more than Rs. 5 lakh were taken away. In ordinary course, he should have first rushed to Ahmedabad. If he could meet Police Commissioner in Bombay, he could meet Police Commissioner in Ahmedabad. Even if he suspected involvement of some Police Officers, a heirarchy of Police Officers being Deputy Commissioner of Police, Commissioner of Police, director General of Police were available and he could have approached them. He could further approach the Home Department, Public leaders and no less powerful institutions like Chamber of Commerce. If it was not possible for him to come down to ahmedabad, he could have asked the petitioner No. 3 who was at Ahmedabad to lodge the FIR. He was also required togive list of articles, which were taken away. Lastly, he could have approached to the Court of magistrate of competent jurisdiction, who could direct investigation under Sec. 156 (3) and also provide protection to the petitioners in accordance with law. There are no allegations against Senior Police Officers. I have no reason to believe that if the petitioners would have not taken action in the matter, if they would have found involvement of lower rank officers, action would have been taken against them. Instead of availing ordinary remedy available to every citizen placed in any position high or low, which is more convenient and effective for citizens and also the law enforcing agencies petitioners approached the highest Court of the country and then being relegated has sought to invoke extra ordinary remedy of this Court under art. 226 of the Constitution. I am just amazed, either he is ill-advised or if I enter into speculation, possibly the petitioners business transactions are of doubtful character and their apprehension is that if they ask for investigation of the cases referred, their misdeed may be exposed, and thus if they can get police protection under the direction of the court, they will be able to keep the law enforcing Agencies away. If it is so, there is gross abuse of the process of this Court. I have come across some cases in last few months where I found that the petitioners by false and exaggerated narrations have aroused the sympathy of the court and obtained order of police protection, saying that they are prepared to pay the cost. Such petitioners have misused the police protection and in fact indulged in criminal activities. Thus, this Court in exercise of powers under Art. 226, will be reluctant to issue directions for police protection just for asking. It must be left to objective assessment of the concerned authorities, unless there are compelling reasons to issue such directions, whatever I have said has no reflection on the conduct of the petitioners, as I have said that "if I enter into speculation". So far as the present case is concerned, I am not inclined to invoke the power under Art. 226 of the Constitution, as the petitioner has approached the Supreme Court and the High Court, without exhausting remedies available and for reason that there are no compelling reasons to issue direction for police protection. I have no reason to believe that the petitioners at the hands of higher authorities in the Department wilt not get the grievances investigated fairly. If they find that some officers of their Department are misusing their office, they will take action against them. Nothing more can be done in this petition that what has been done by order of this court dated 12. 12. 1996, whereby a direction as already been given to the police Commissioner, Ahmedabad to sympathetically hear the petitioners and do the needful in accordance with law. This order is without prejudice to the rights of any law enforcing agencies to enquire or investigate if there is anything wrong with the conduct of the petitioners or there are cases against them. ( 6 ) IN view of the aforesasid, I find no merit in this group of applications and the same is rejected subject to the aforesaid observation. Rule discharged in each Applications. Interim orders with respect to the police protection stands vacated. .