IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 1217 of 2011 Decided on: March 16, 2011. Ravinder Singh. ……….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & ors. ……….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, A.G. with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. AG and Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. AG. for respondents No. 1 and 2. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:- “i) That a writ of mandamus may very kindly be issued thereby directing the respondent No.1 to include the daughter-in-law in the definition of family member in the explanation given under section 122(1)(c), in those cases, where the daughter-in-law residing with the joint family and getting the benefits of the encroachments or is the beneficiary of encroachment. ii) That respondent No.2 may be directed to take appropriate action against the respondent No.3 under the Panchayati Raj Act.” 2. It is a well settled principle of law that no mandamus can be issued to the State to legislate on a particular point. It is their legislative wisdom. In case the petitioner feels that the legislative wisdom needs a review, it is for him to approach the first respondent or initiate such process as provided under the 2 Constitution for an appropriate amendment. There is no challenge to the Rules for want of proper classification. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the liberty to take up the matter before the appropriate forum. The petitioner is free to bring this matter to the notice of the first respondent by all legitimate means. 3. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. March 16, 2011. ( Justice V.K. Ahuja), (vs/vt) Judge.