IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1976 OF 2009 (MS) Smt. Krishna Datta and another. …..Petitioners. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ……..Respondents. Mr. Siddharth Sah, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand/respondent no. 1, 5 and 6. Mr. Udyog Shukla, Standing Counsel for Union of India/respondent no. 2. Ms. Puja Banga, Advocate for respondent no. 3 and 4. 23rd November, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard Mr. Siddharth Sah, Advocate for petitioners, Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand/respondent no. 1, 5 and 6, Mr. Udyog Shukla, Standing Counsel for Union of India/respondent no. 2 and Ms. Puja Banga, Advocate for respondent no. 3 and 4. The main grievance of the petitioner is against the activities of respondent no. 8, which is a hotel. From the averments made in the writ petition, it appears that the dispute raised by the petitioner is a civil dispute and is not cognizable by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as in the opinion of this Court, public law remedy is not available to be petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Siddharth Sah, however, contends that he is not seeking any relief from the private individual but from the government authorities. A perusal of the prayer in the writ petition indeed shows that the petitioner is seeking directions from this Court against the government authorities. However, in case the petitioner feels that there is also a public interest in the cause he is agitating, he is at liberty to file such a petition. 2 Therefore, on the grounds presently stated in the writ petition, the cognizance of this case cannot be taken by this Court in its present jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as such. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 23.11.2009 Rathour