IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 313 of 2008 Kanti Kumar … Petitioner Vs State of Uttarakhand & Others … Respondents Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. Hon’ble Nirmal Yadav, J. List has been revised. 2. None has appeared on behalf of the petitioner before the Court. 3. Sri S.N. Babulkar, learned Advocate General on behalf of the State/respondent No. 1, Sri Vipul Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 2 and Sri Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for respondent No. 3 is present before the Court. 4. Our attention has been drawn by the learned Advocate General to the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 1 – Principal Secretary, Revenue & Urban Development Departments, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun, in which, paragraph 5 reads, as follows:- “It is stated that the Nagar Palika Parishad, Haridwar instituted a case no. 2/82 under U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 against the Tarun Himalaya society in the Court of Prescribed Authority, Haridwar and the case was decided against the said Society. Feeling aggrieved an Appeal No. 58/53-Tarun Himalaya Vs Municipal Board, Haridwar was preferred and the learned District Judge, Saharanpur remanded the case to the Prescribed Authority. (Report of 2 Nagar Palika, Haridwar dated 31-3-10/1-04-10 is already annexed as above at Annexure 1). The related file of the remanded case is not traceable and search for the file is underway. The City Magistrate, Haridwar, prescribed authority in the matter, has been directed to take further action as per law in light of the remand order dated 10-12-1987 of the Hon’ble District Judge, Saharanpur. (Report of District Magistrate dated 1-4-10 and report dated 8-4-10 enclosing the order dated 10-12- 1987 of the Hon’ble District Judge are at Annexure 13).” 5. He has also invited our attention towards page 67 of the counter affidavit which is a letter sent by District Magistrate, Haridwar dated 8th April, 2010 and addressed to Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Government of Uttarakhand and this letter reveals that the file relating to the Public Premises Act, which was decided by District Judge, Saharanpur and District Judge, Saharanpur, remanded the matter to the court of Prescribed Authority, Haridwar for deciding the matter afresh, but this file is now missing and the search is being made to trace out the file. The District Magistrate, Haridwar has informed the State Government that the steps are being taken for reconstructing the file in order to take further steps in the matter. 6. Since, the matter is pending before the Prescribed Authority, Haridwar, hence, the law is taking its own course and in these circumstances, we are of the definite view that public interest litigation is not maintainable. However, we direct the District Magistrate, Haridwar to take necessary steps for reconstructing the file and thereafter decide the matter at the earliest. 3 7. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of. (Nirmal Yadav, J.) (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 28.07.2010 ASWAL