WRIT PETITION 1 of 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHANDAT NAINITAL

Writ Petition No. 143 (PIL) of 2013

Arvind Kumar. ……..Petitioner.

Versus

State of Uttarakhand

and others. …… Respondents.

Present: None for the petitioner and respondent no. 6.

Mr. H.M. Bhatia, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent no. 1 to 5. None for respondent no. 6.

Coram: Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J.Hon’ble Alok Singh, J.

Hon. V.K. Bist, J. (Oral)

reliefs:

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking following

“i. Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1 to constitute an enquiry committee to enquire about the forged entries regarding the mutation of land of temple / society in the name of several persons and direct the enquiry committee to submit its report before the Hon’ble Court and further direct the respondents to take necessary action in accordance with law.

ii. Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to restrain the political activities in the temple / society premises and take necessary action against the actual culprits in accordance with the provisions of Act, 1988.”

Petitioner claims himself to be an Editor in Globe News, which is providing news to print media. He is residing in Nainital. He is also an RTI activist and is engaged in social welfare activities. There is one Rama Temple in Ramnagar, District Nainital run and controlled by society registered under the provisions of the Society Registration Act, 1860. It is the allegation of the petitioner that prior to the registration of society, the temple/society had 42 bigha land and 38 pukka construction but

later on, property of temple was being misappropriated by some local persons in collusion with respondents. More than 10 bigha land of temple / society was misappropriated by respondent no. 6 through mutation in its own name, which was further made free hold in favour of local land grabbers.

Respondents have filed counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, respondents have submitted that petitioner himself had filed Civil Suit No. 1 of 2013 as plaintiff no. 2 before Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ramnagar, District – Nainital for declaration, eviction and permanent injunction and in view of this fact, present public interest litigation is not maintainable. In support of his contention, Mr. H.M. Bhatia, learned Brief Holder has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Santosh Sood Vs. Gajendra Singh and others reported in AIR 2010 SC 593.

We have perused the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court and also gone through the contents of counter affidavit.

We are satisfied with the submission of Mr. H. M. Bhatia, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand that present PIL is not maintainable at the behest of petitioner, as he himself had filed Civil Suit No. 1 of 2013 before Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ramnagar, Nainital. We have also noticed that petitioner is tenant in the temple property, therefore, is interested party.

In view of the above, petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

(Alok Singh, J.) (V.K. Bist, J.) 30.05.2017 30.05.2017

SKS