IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition P.I.L. No. 104 of 2009 Smt. Sapna Gautam. .……… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others. .………. Respondents. Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Standing Counsel (Central Govt.) for respondent No. 6. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. BARIN GHOSH, C. J. (Oral) In this so-called Public Interest Litigation, we feel that there is no public interest involved. However, this litigation has brought to our notice the fact that a number of people are squatting on reserved forest area and the State has taken no step to remove them. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that a decision was taken to grant lease of certain land in favour of 45 people, but ultimately the lease was not granted. Petitioner is not one of those 45 people nor she is deriving title through any of them. The principal grievance in the writ petition is non-grant of such lease in favour of those 45 people. The petitioner is, therefore, espousing the cause of those 45 people as a Public Interest Litigation. We do not think that such a writ petition, in the form of Public Interest Litigation, is at all presentable. In the event, for non- grant of lease, any of those 45 people has suffered or is suffering, he alone can take steps to redress the same. That being the situation, no public element is involved in the present writ petition. 3. We, accordingly, dismiss the writ petition. Having noted the fact that squatters are squatting inside reserved forest area and the State Government has taken no step to remove those squatters, we feel that it is high-time for the State and its machinery to act and, accordingly, direct a 2 copy of this order to be sent to the Chief Secretary of the State for taking necessary steps. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C. J.) 25.10.2010 25.10.2010 G