IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2084 OF 2008 (MS) Bharat Singh Rawat ..............Petitioner. Versus Union of India and others. .......Respondents. Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. Anjali Bhargava, Standing Counsel for Union of India. 16th April, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. From the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner is a “war-handicap” and he was given certain facilities by the Army Authorities at Lansdowne under the Central Government Scheme for Rehabilitation of such war-handicaps. Although it has not been elaborated by the petitioner a ‘war handicap’ would be a soldier who was injured during a war or conflicts or while “on duty”, and has thus become a handicap. This is the presumption with which this court proceeds in this matter. 2. The petitioner stated that he was asked to run a poultry-farm within the premises of the Army establishment, but since he could not pay the dues of the Army and his truck was seized by the Army Authorities and the petitioner has sought relief with the following prayers in his writ petition: “1. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding Respondents to release the Vehicle of the Petitioner (Truck NO. 207 DI No. U.A.-12/6426) forthwith and also pay the compensation for the loss incurred to the petitioner due to the illegal confinement of the aforesaid truck. 2. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to permit the petitioner to run the Poultry Farm which has been allotted to him since 01-03-2002. 3. to issue any other suitable Order or Direction as this Hon’ble court may deem fit & proper under the facts & circumstances of the case. 4. to award the cost of the petition to the petitioner. 3. During the pendency of the writ petition, this Court has been apprised that the said truck has been released by the Army Authorities. However according to the petitioner after the truck was released, the same was taken over by the Tata Finance Company before whom the said vehicle was pledged. 4. This Court is of the opinion that the relief being sought by the petitioner cannot be granted in the present writ petition. Moreover, the grievance of the petitioner had already been redressed inasmuch as the truck of the petitioner had been released by the Army authorities however the petitioner prays that he was a war-handicap and was surviving mainly out of the income through the poultry-far. The court therefore as a purely humanitarian measure directs the petitioner to make a representation before the Centre Commanding Officer, Garhwal Rifle Regiment Centre, Landsdowne, District Pauri Garhwal /respondent no. 2. stating his grievance and making request to permit him to run poultry farm as he had been running in the past. The Authorities concerned may pass an order on the said representation of the petitioner. It is made clear that this Court is not making any remarks as to the merit of the case. The petitioner’s contention for running the poultry farm is left purely on the wisdom and discretion of the army authorities. 5. With the aforesaid observations, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 16.4.2009 Rathour