( 1 ) DELAY condoned. ( 2 ) LEAVE granted. ( 3 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. ( 4 ) UNION of India is challenging the direction given to it by the High court for providing protection to respondent No. 1. Ordinarily, its not the duty of C. R. P. F. to provide protection to private persons. The reasons given by the High court for directing that central Reserve Police Force should provide protection to respondent no. 1 are not proper. The direction ought to have been given to the State government to provide protection to respondent no. 1 with its own police force. We, therefore, modify the order passed by the High court, set aside the direction whereby c. R. P. F. has been directed to provide security to respondent No. 1 and to the family member and instead direct the state government to provide sufficient security, to respondent No. 1 and to family members. It will be open to the State government to apply to the High court for modification of the High courts order for providing security, if and when the circumstances change. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.