ORDER : This Writ petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to give necessary police protection to conduct Sri Samban Temple Festival with Anna Thanam and consequently forbear the respondents No.2 and 3 from anyway causing disturbance to the function. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that Sri Samban Temple situated at Koduvur Village, Yembal Post in Sivagangai District is a private and family temple maintained by 48 pangalis, who belonged to Adi Dravidar Community. The pangalis are residing in few villages. Even in the petition it is stated that the respondents 2 and 3 are trying to disturb the administration of the temple creating certain issues particularly with regard to the person who can perform the poojas and other ceremonies inside the temple. 4. The petitioner further states that the respondents 2 and 3 are acting against the temple administration and they are instigating the other person to remove the priest one Subramanian, who according to the petitioner, is entitled to perform poojas and other ceremonies inside the temple. 5. The learned Additional Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that the peace committee meeting was conducting in view of the dispute. The peace committee meeting was fixed today (i.e.17.08.2017). Though notice was issued to the petitioner to attend the peace committee meeting, which was scheduled to be conducted today, the petitioner did not turn up. In such circumstances, this Court can foresee some law and order problem that may arise due to attitude of the petitioner himself in boycotting the peace committee meeting. Though the petitioner claims that one Subramanian is entitled to perform the poojas and other things, this Court is not a forum, where such issues relating to the rights and privileges of individual can be agitated. 6. Having regard to the responsibility of the first respondent to maintain the law and order, this is not in a decision to direct the first respondent to give police protection without concurrents of all consent. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 has submitted that the petitioner is not agreeable for appointing a common man to perform the poojas as suggested by the other fancies. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 has submitted that the petitioner is not agreeable for appointing a common man to perform the poojas as suggested by the other fancies. Considering the nature of prayer sought for in the writ petition, this Court has no other option to dismiss the writ petition. However, the petitioner is at liberty to establish his right which he claims by way of practice or customs with regard to performing poojas and other services in the temple by approaching the Civil Court. 8. With the above observations, this Writ petition is dismissed. No costs.