JUDGMENT :

RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J.

1. This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Senior Superintendent of Police, Haridwar, and the Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Haridwar, to provide protection to the petitioners in case of any threat or interference being caused, by the 4th respondent-Ganga Sabha - a registered society at Har Ki Pauri, Haridwar, to the life and property of the petitioners; and for a writ of mandamus directing the Ganga Sabha not to extend any threat to the life and property of the petitioners.

2. After the writ petition was filed, the Teerth Purohit Samaj filed an application to implead themselves as a respondent in the Writ Petition and, by order dated 06.03.2014, they stood impleaded as the 5th respondent. Thereafter, an application (CLMA No. 14378 of 2018) was filed by the petitioner to implead the Haridwar Development Authority as the 6th respondent in the writ petition, and the impleadment application was ordered by a Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 19.09.2018.

3. This case has a checkered history. The dispute in this writ petition revolves around a temple situated at Har Ki Pauri in Haridwar called the 'Ganga Mandir'. Even according to the petitioners themselves, as has been stated in the writ affidavit, the said temple was built by Raja Man Singh of Ajmer, Jaipur in the 16th Century, wherein the idols of Sri Ram Chandra Ji, Sita Ji, Laxman Ji, Hanuman Ji and Radha Krishna Ji were installed. The main idol is that of Ganga Ji. This temple is situated in the stream of the River 'Ganges' which forms the Har Ki Pauri.

4. The father, of the second and third petitioners, made an application in the early 1980s seeking permission, from the Executive Engineer, Uttarakhand Gang Nahar, Roorkee, for renovation; and the Executive Engineer, by his proceedings dated 17.10.1985, granted his No Objection for renovation of the temple, and to strengthen its base, subject to the condition that it did not affect the flow of water in the River 'Ganges'. No further action was, however, taken pursuant thereto. The father of the second and the third petitioners, thereafter, moved an application dated 29.09.1997 before the Haridwar Development Authority (the 'HDA' for short), seeking permission for renovation of the said temple. The HDA, by its proceedings dated 22.10.1997, granted permission for renovation of the temple in terms of the application dated 29.09.1997. The petitioner was informed that no new construction should be raised at the place where the temple was constructed; the original shape of the temple should not be changed; and, before undertaking renovation work, prior permission of the Irrigation Department should be obtained. After grant of permission on 22.10.1997, the HDA issued a notice on 03.02.1998 calling upon the petitioners to show cause why the unauthorized construction being raised by them should not be stopped. On the very same day, yet another order came to be passed by the HDA under Section 27 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 directing the petitioners to stop construction on the ground that they were raising construction without permission from the HDA.

5. Thereafter, by proceedings dated 07.03.1998, the HDA called upon the father of the second and the third petitioners to show cause why the new construction raised by them should not be demolished. Aggrieved by these three orders, the first petitioner and his father invoked the jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 10219 of 1998, wherein they sought a writ of certiorari to quash the three orders; and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the completion of the renovation work of the temple, which was being carried out by the second petitioner. This writ petition came to be heard by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court on 23.03.1998.

6. Since the rival contentions put forth in the present case, by learned Sen