IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (PIL) No.120 of 2009 Balwant Singh Chuphal ……… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others ………. Respondents Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. H.M. Raturi, Brief Holder for State/respondents no.1 to 7 Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate for respondent no.8 Mr. Subodh Kumar, Advocate for respondent no.9 Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Date of Decision: 07.12.2010 Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) We are also of the view, as has been expressed in the counter affidavit, that the present litigation is a blackmailing litigation, in the name of public interest litigation. Although, petitioner seeks to rely upon the Policy enshrined in the Government Order dated 6.4.2001, which however does not contain any clause, that a licence cannot be granted to a Hotel or a Bar, situated within 50 meters from a Mandir, that appears to be the main reason seeking cancellation of the licence granted in favour of respondent no.9. 2. The writ petition is frivolous, malafide and has been filed with an oblique motive and we, accordingly, dismiss the same. We are not imposing cost, inasmuch as, if we do so, the petitioner will not pay the same, as he has not paid the cost imposed by the Apex Court and, accordingly, we would become more busy in pursuing realization of the cost by initiating further proceedings and we do not want to waste any further time of the Court. (V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 07.12.2010 Aswal/Rdang