IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Interim Relief Application No.4030 of 2009 In Writ Petition (M/S) No. 755 of 2009 M/s Singla Realters Ltd. Having its office at B-40, Madhu Vihar, Delhi through Sri Dinesh Singh Kari authorized person. Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary, Local Bodies, Civil Secretariat, Dehradun. 2. Municipal Board Parishad, Nainital through its Executive Officer at Municipal Board Office, Mallital, Nainital. 3. President, Municipal Board Parishad, Nainital at Municipal Board Office, Mallital, Nainital. 4. Union of India through its Secretary Ministry of Defence, New Delhi. Respondents. Mr. Vivek Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl.C.S.C. for the respondent No.1. Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Mr. M.A. Khan, Advocate for the respondent No.4. Date 10-02-2010 Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a following reliefs:- (i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, not to stop the petitioner from receiving the entry/permit fees from the defence personnel’s in the private/commercial vehicles with their own purposes and to withdraw the letter dated 17-4- 2009. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.4 to issue the directions to defense personnel’s to pay 2 entry/permit fees at the time of entering in city Nainital by private/commercial vehicles with their own purposes. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2, to adjust the amount of the losses in the amount of Rs. 1, 85, 40,000/- which is to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent No. 2 against the collection of entry fees in city Nainital from Tallital and Barapathar. (iv) Issue an interim order for stay of the implementation of letter dated 17-4-2009 to save the petitioner from losses which are being suffered day by day and are not recoverable. (v) Issue any other or further writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (vi) Award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner. So far as the relief Nos. 1 and 2 is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at bar that the letter dated 17-4- 2009 had been withdrawn by the respondent No.2, therefore relief Nos. 1 and 2 have become infructuous. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is pressing relief No. 3 whereby the direction has been sought in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.2, to adjust the amount of the lossess in the amount of Rs. 1,85,40,000/-which is to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent No.2 against the collection of entry fees in city Nainital from Tallital and Barapathar. So far as this relief is concerned, there are so many disputed question of facts are involved and this relief cannot be granted in the writ jurisdiction. 3 It is settled law that in writ jurisdiction, disputed question of facts cannot be decided. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition. Permission granted. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail appropriate remedy before appropriate forum. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. (B.S. Verma,J) MK 10-02-2010