JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, C.J. (Oral) 1. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking following relief: “a. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing and commanding the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to provide adequate safety and security to the petitioner as respondent nos. 3 and 4 in an illegal and arbitrary manner continuously threatening the petitioner with dire consequences and are illegally restraining the petitioner from doing his business from tenanted shop situated at Kaldungi Chauraha, Haldwani, Nainiatal.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: The father of the petitioner for last more than 50 years came in possession as a tenant of shop in Nainital. Father continuously paid rent. On death of the father, petitioner became tenant. Respondent no. 4 had business relationship with the petitioner and he used to arrange labours for the petitioner. He colluded with respondent no. 3. It is stated at the Bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent no. 3 is the son of landlord. But he has intention to evict the petitioner from the said shop and instead of taking legal recourse, he is using muscle power. Petitioner has stated in para 7 of the writ petition that although, articles worth more than Rs. 1.5 lakh are lying in the said shop, but respondent no. 3 has illegally locked the said shop and respondent nos. 3 and 4 with their goons are not permitting the petitioner to enter into the shop. Petitioner moved representation for providing adequate safety and security so that he may continue his business and his life and liberty can be protected. Presently, season of marriage is started and petitioner’s band being a renowned band of Haldwani city remains in demand and said business is the only source of livelihood. Petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and injury, if respondents are permitted to continue nefarious acts of extending threats of dire consequences and creating hindrance in his business. 3. We heard Mr. Z.U. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand. 4. In the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that petitioner should be relegated to approach competent forum and seek appropriate relief. 3. We heard Mr. Z.U. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand. 4. In the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that petitioner should be relegated to approach competent forum and seek appropriate relief. It will be also open to the petitioner to seek interim relief before the appropriate forum and it is for the forum to decide the case. 5. Without prejudice to the right available to the petitioner, petition is closed.