IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (P.I.L.) No. 54 of 2011 Budhi Ballabh Chamoli a nd others ….…….. Petitioners Versus Union of India and others ................ Respondents Present: Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Menka Tripathi, Advocate for Union of India/respondent No.1. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent No.2. Mr. M.L. Lahoty and Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocates for respondent No.3. WITH Writ Petition (P.I.L.) No. 19 of 2011 Swami Anand Pandey ….…….. Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ................ Respondents Present: Mr. Parikshit Saini & Mr. H.S. Dhillon, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/ respondent No.1. Mr. M.L. Lahoty and Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocates for respondent No.2. Ms. Menka Tripathi, Advocate for Union of India/respondent No.4. Coram : Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, Chief Justice Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, Judge Date : 1st December, 2011 JUDGMENT Barin Ghosh, C. J. (Oral) The subject matter in both the writ petitions is identical and, accordingly, they are being disposed of by the following order. 2. It is stated that the Mandir, being the subject matter of the writ petitions, is registered under an Act. It has not been stated anywhere in the body of the writ petitions that by reason of such registration, what protection and to what extent, such protection is available. The person responsible to protect the Mandir in question, by reason of such registration, has not been approached seeking 2 protection, which is the subject matter of the writ petitions. There is no averment to that effect in the writ petitions. The said person has also not been made a party to the writ petitions and it has not been averred in the writ petitions that despite approaching the said person, protection, as is being sought for, has not been accorded. The writ petitions, therefore, have been filed in the manner, the same should not have been filed. On that ground alone, we are dismissing the writ petitions. The order of dismissal of the writ petitions will not prevent the petitioners to approach the authority, if there be any, who is statutorily bound to give protection of the nature, as is being sought for in the writ petitions, of the Mandir in question and in the event the petitioners are dissatisfied with the nature of protection accorded or promised to be accorded by the authority, it shall be open to the petitioners to re-approach this Court. (U.C. Dhyani, J.) ( Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 01.12.2011 01.12.2011 P. Singh