IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 6257 of 2010 Judgment reserved on: 4.10.2010 Date of decision: 27.10.2010 Kanta Mahant ….. Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. & Others ……Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, A.G. with Mr. R.M. Bisht, Dy. A.G. for respondents No. 1 to 6. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge The petitioner has prayed mainly following relief:- “ i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued directing the respondents No. 2 to 6 and their administration not to give the permission to any eunuch people or individual to run Eunuch activities in their respective areas without the prior permission of the petitioner being guru of the Eunuch community in the districts of Chamba, Kangra, Mandi, Kulu and, Hamirpur with further direction to restrain the respondents No. 7 to 10 and any other Eunuch people/community to run the Eunuch activities in the above mentioned areas because they have no right without the prior permission of the petitioner who is having right of supervision and control for running Eunuch activities in the aforementioned areas.” 2. It is the case of the petitioner that she is guru of eunuchs community in an area comprising of districts Kangra, Kullu, Hamirpur, Chamba and Mandi in Himachal Pradesh. She has control over the eunuchs activities such as dancing, singing etc., on the occasions of marriages, births and other festivals. The respondents No. 7 to 10 are performing eunuchs activities without her permission and creating disorder in the society by demanding unreasonable money and gifts on the occasions of marriages, births and other festivals. The petitioner has traced her alleged right as guru through Gurubhai Baba Chhotu Ram, Guru Baba Buta and Guru Manchanda. It has been alleged that Guru Manchanda had given right to Guru Baba Buta in the eunuchs Panchayat held on 18.9.1910 for collecting gifts on the occasions of marriages, births and other festivals in districts Kullu, Kangra, Mandi, etc. After the death of Baba Buta, such right was exercised by Gurubhai Baba Chhotu Ram and after him, by the petitioner. 3. The further case of the petitioner is that she being Guru of eunuchs community has a right to control the eunuchs activities in the aforesaid districts. The petitioner had filed a civil suit No. 235/1990 for declaration in the court of learned Sub Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala when few eunuchs denied the status of the petitioner and refused to obey her instructions and control. The suit was decided in her favour on 31.12.1996. 4. It has been alleged that Gurubhai Baba Chhotu Ram had executed a Will, dated 23.3.1992. On the basis of Will of Gurubhai Baba Chhotu Ram, the petitioner has right to control over entire area in Himachal Pradesh for running the affairs of eunuchs. It has been alleged that till 2009 there was no problem and the petitioner was running the affairs smoothly. However, thereafter, respondents No. 7 to 10 without prior permission of petitioner started eunuchs activities in different areas of Himachal Pradesh. The respondents No. 7 to 10 have no right to perform eunuchs activities in Himachal Pradesh without permission of the petitioner. It has been alleged that due to illegal activities of respondents No. 7 to 10 law and order situation has also been created. The petitioner has filed two suits, which are pending in the court of Civil Judge, Dharamshala. She has also lodged a complaint at Police Station, Palampur. One matter at her instance is still pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Palampur. She has also referred to other litigations pending in different courts. 5. It has been alleged that respondent No. 7 is claiming District Kangra area for eunuchs activities on the basis of alleged agreement, dated 23.2.2009 with petitioner for a consideration of Rs.3,00,000/-, which is a forged document. The petitioner had earlier filed CWP No. 916 of 2010, which was dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, the petitioner made representations to the Deputy Commissioners and Sub Divisional Magistrates of Districts Kangra, Kullu, Mandi, Pathankot etc. The petitioner has claimed herself to be the Guru of eunuchs community. Therefore, she has filed the present writ petition for the above relief. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petition is wholly misconceived. The petitioner has claimed her right for eunuchs activities in districts Chamba, Kangra, Mandi, Kullu and Hamirpur on the basis of alleged right given by Guru Manchanda to Guru Baba Buta, who gave such right to Gurubhai Baba Chhotu Ram and, who in turn allegedly exercised control over eunuchs for performing eunuchs activities in the aforesaid districts. The petitioner has claimed right to control the eunuchs community in the aforesaid districts on the basis of alleged Will, dated 23.3.1992 of Gurubhai Baba Chhotu Ram. It is the case of the petitioner that she has filed several cases in different courts including some civil suits. The petitioner is projecting her case on the basis of Will and other documents allegedly executed by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner. The petitioner has raised several disputed facts, which cannot be gone into in the writ petition. No action of the State of or its officers has been challenged in the writ petition. The petitioner through this petition is enforcing her alleged private rights against private respondents No. 7 to 10, which is not permissible under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. The pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (Justice Kurian Joseph) Chief Justice. October 27, 2010 (Justice Kuldip Singh) (pankaj) Judge.