IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 253 of 2010. 1. Dr. Satya Prakash Mittal, S/O Late M.L.Mittal, R/O 3/2, Curzon Road, Dehradoon. 2. Jagdish Prasad Kamboj, S/O Kaliram Kamboj, R/O 3/3, Curzon Road, Dehradoon. Vs. … Petitioners. 1. State of Uttarakhand through its Principal Secretary, Department of Secondary Education, Dehradoon. 2. Director of Education (Secondary Education), State of Uttarakhand Dehradoon. 3. Deputy Director of Education, lGarhwal Mandal, Pauri Garhwal. 4. Brooklyin Educational Society, 3/1, Curzon Road, Dehradoon through its Secretary. 5. Brooklyin School 3/1, Curzon Road, Dehradoon, through its Principal. 6. Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations, Pragati House, IIIrd Floor, 47-48 Nehru Place, New Delhi, through its Chief Executive and Secretary. …Respondents. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mittal, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. K.P.Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent nos. 1 to 3. Date March 18, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record . By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:- a. To issue a writ, order, direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to shift Brooklyn School, 3/1 Curzon Road, Dehradoon from present residential premise to elsewhere. b. To issue a writ, order, direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to compensate the petitioners in the matter what this Hon’ble Court deem fit in the interest of justice. c. and/or to issue a writ, order, direction in the nature as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of 2 the case and for which the petitioners may be found legally entitled under law. d. To award the cost of this writ petition to the petitioner. According to the petitioners, the petitioner no. 1 purchased an old house with common passage, which was part of the property of Dr. Ram Murti son of Shri Jhandey Ram and his son, Sri Satpal Gover situated at 3 Curzon Road on 2-9-1986. He also purchased a plot adjacent to the aforesaid property with common passage on 7-9-1987 through registered sale deed. Petitioner No. 2 also purchased the old house, under his tenancy with common passage on 8-2-1989. These property was numbered as 3, 3/1, 3/2 and 3/3 Curzon Road and the said property was being used for residential purposes. The vendors/sellers of the property formed a society in the name of Brooklyn Shiksha Samiti and got is registered under the Society Registration Act on 14-9-1988 and one of the sellers gave his residence on lease to the Society on 9-9-1996 to run an English Medium School. The grievance of the petitioners is that despite the objections raised by the petitioners, the act on the part of the vendors and lessor to run the school in the residential premise is illegal and not sustainable under the law and no heed was paid to the complaints made by the petitioners to respondent nos. 1 to 3. It appears that the petitioners had approached the Delhi High Court in WP© No. 11234-35 of 2005, Dr. Satya Prakash Mittal and another Vs. ICSE with a prayer to withdraw/de-list the affiliation granted to the Brorklyn School. I have perused the averments made in the memo of writ petition. In paragraph no. 27 the petitioners have stated as under:- 3 “27. That on 22nd August, 2006, aforesaid writ petition filed in Delhi High Court was withdrawn by the petitioners with liberty to file a fresh case in civil court for the same relief against ICSE.” Having gone the entire material placed before this Court, I am of the considered view that the dispute involved in the present writ petition appears to be of civil nature and there are disputed questions of fact as to the existence of common passage of the parties at the spot etc. involved for adjudication of the dispute. The scope of writ court being very limited, no writ of mandamus for shifting of the institution can be issued by this Court. The petitioners may file a civil suit before the competent Court for redressal of their grievance. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed summarily. RCP (B.S.Verma,J.) 4 5 6 7