IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 1523 of 2011 Decided on: 6th September, 2011. Bhagirath and others. … Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. & others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. For the petitioners : Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. J.K. Verma, DAG, for respondents No.1 to 5. Mr. Ravinder Pal Singh Katwal, respondent No.7 is present in person. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petitioners have approached this Court in public interest bringing to the notice of this Court as to how the larger public interest is affected by the lease of the land granted in favour of the 6th respondent for the purpose of construction of community hall. Having perused the lease deed made available to this Court, this Court on 1st July, 2011 passed the following order: “It is submitted that the Community Centre is meant for the public to be used irrespective of caste, colour, 2 creed or sex. It is also submitted that the Community Centre is meant only for that purpose and no other purpose. But there are certain provisions in the lease deed which could be interpreted otherwise. In view of the bona fides shown by the 7th respondent and in view of the clarity in his submissions, while appreciating the same, we are of the view that it will only be in the larger public interest, the bona fides shown by Mr. Ravinder Pal Singh Katwal, before this Court in his submissions are also to be reflected in a proper resolution taken by the society. 7th respondent may do so and file an affidavit before this Court with the resolution thus taken in the society.” 2. It is submitted that in terms of the observations made by this Court at the time of hearing, the 6th respondent has already passed a Resolution on 3rd July, 2011, which is produced along with the affidavit filed by Mr. Ravinder Pal Singh Katwal. The same is taken on record. Mr. Ravinder Pal Singh Katwal who is present before this Court fairly submits that in terms of the affidavit, as above, and the Resolution passed by the Sabha, the lease deed already executed by the Government with the Sabha requires modification as to the use of the land. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of as follows: 3. The lease deed dated 20th September, 2010 shall be appropriately modified by execution of fresh lease deed between the parties after incorporating the terms of the Resolution passed by the Sabha and also appropriately 3 incorporating the necessary safeguards for protecting the larger public interest. This shall be done within a month. 4. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 6th September, 2011. (Justice Sanjay Karol), (tr) Judge. 4