JUDGMENT (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Alok Kumar Verma) Whether the petitioner has a valid and enforceable right to continue the security, which was provided to him? This is the question arises in this writ petition. 2. In order to appreciate the said issue, involved in this writ petition, the relevant facts, as stated in the writ petition, need mentioned infra. 3. The petitioner is the owner of a land, bearing Khasra No.170, situated in village Saitpura Mewar Kalan, District Haridwar. One Musteem and other persons were interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner, due to which, the petitioner filed a Civil Suit against them, which was numbered as Civil Suit No.117 of 2008, “Anil Kumar vs. Musteem and others". The said suit was dismissed vide order dated 30.01.2014, against which, the petitioner filed a Civil Appeal before the Court of District Judge, Haridwar. The said appeal was allowed vide judgment dated 01.09.2016. The said appellate Judgment has attained finality. After the judgment of the appellate court, the petitioner started construction on the said property. The respondent no.5 with the help of his associates started threatening the petitioner and asked him to vacate the said land. Therefore, the petitioner filed a Criminal Writ Petition No.881 of 2016 in this Court. This Court vide order dated 28.09.2016 closed the said writ petition with the direction, “The arrangement of Gunners being provided, will continue for a period of 10 days and, thereafter, if the petitioner represents before the first respondent that there is still threat from the party respondents to the petitioner, he will look into the matter and only if is satisfied that there is threat, he will provide adequate protection as and when required." In the intervening night of 2/3 September, 2016, the respondent no.5 installed a statue of Baba Sahib Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar on the land of the petitioner. The petitioner approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No.2508 of 2016, which was disposed of by order dated 16.02.2017. This Court observed that if the land-in-question belonged to the petitioner, he was free to remove the statue. Since, it was not possible for the petitioner to remove the statue, he filed a Writ Petition No.847 of 2017 before this Court for providing police assistance to remove the statue. The said writ petition is still pending. This Court observed that if the land-in-question belonged to the petitioner, he was free to remove the statue. Since, it was not possible for the petitioner to remove the statue, he filed a Writ Petition No.847 of 2017 before this Court for providing police assistance to remove the statue. The said writ petition is still pending. After passing the order dated 16.02.2017, the respondent no.5 and his associates tried to take forcible possession of the land of the petitioner and when the police reached the spot, the respondent no.5 and his associates assaulted the police personnel, in respect of which an FIR was registered against them. The respondent no.5 lodged an FIR against the petitioner and another with the allegations that the said statue had been stolen. After the investigation, a closure report was filed by the Investigating Officer. In these circumstances, it is clear that the threat perception to the life and liberty of the petitioner at the hands of the respondent nos.5 to 13 still subsists. However, the respondent no.2 has withdrawn the police security of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 13.05.2021 without any notice and without serving the order upon the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 13.05.2021, passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Security), the respondent no.2, and, a writ to direct the respondent nos.1 to 4 to grant security to the petitioner, who is facing threat to his life and liberty at the hands of the respondent nos. 5 to 13. 4. Heard Mr. Navneet Kaushik, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J.S. Virk, the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand. 5. Mr. Navneet Kaushik, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that Article 21 of the Constitution of India enables a person, whose life and liberty are threatened, to seek protection from Police. The petitioner is the owner of the said property. However, the petitioner is facing threat to his life and liberty at the hands of respondent nos. 5 to 13, therefore, in the absence of any material, the State cannot withdraw the security, which was provided to him. 6. Per contra, Mr. The petitioner is the owner of the said property. However, the petitioner is facing threat to his life and liberty at the hands of respondent nos. 5 to 13, therefore, in the absence of any material, the State cannot withdraw the security, which was provided to him. 6. Per contra, Mr. J.S. Virk, the learned Deputy Advocate General, contended that there is no substance in the writ petition and after considering the reports, received from various quarters, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, the respondent no.2, has arrived at the conclusion that there was no threat perception to the life and liberty of the petitioner. Therefore, the respondent no.2, after applied his mind to all the relevant considerations, has passed the said order dated 13.05.2021. 7. Police protection cannot be granted to the petitioner for the mere asking of it. Mandamus is not a writ of right. A mandamus will go where there is a specific legal right. 8. In P.R. Muralidharan and others vs. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar, (2006) 4 SCC 501 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a writ of mandamus directing the State to give police protection to the petitioner can be issued only when the Court is satisfied that there is a threat to the petitioner and the authorities have failed to perform their duties. 9. A writ of mandamus for police protection can be maintained only when the petitioner has made out a serious and imminent threat perception. The threat perception should be clear and based on cogent and reliable materials. The petitioner has disclosed only an apprehension. But, an apprehension is different from a perception. The petitioner has not made a factual foundation for the issue of a writ of mandamus for police protection. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show that the respondent no.2 acted arbitrarily or capriciously and the impugned order dated 13.05.2021 has been passed by the respondent no.2 without minimal requirements of justice and fair play. On the other hand, the impugned order clearly shows that the action was taken by the respondent no.2 in good faith, without bias and after application of his mind to all the relevant considerations along with the reports, received from various quarters. 11. On the other hand, the impugned order clearly shows that the action was taken by the respondent no.2 in good faith, without bias and after application of his mind to all the relevant considerations along with the reports, received from various quarters. 11. Indeed, the jurisdiction of the Writ Court is wide while considering the relief regarding police protection to protect the life and liberty of a person, but while doing so the Court cannot adjudicate on the property rights of the petitioner. It is for the State to assess and review the threat perception of an individual on case to case basis. Judicial review in this regard is very limited and since there were adequate materials for the decision taken by the respondent no.2, this Court cannot entertain this writ petition. 12. In view of the above detailed discussion, the writ petition devoid merits. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs.