IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1607 OF 2006 (MS) Pushkar Singh …………Petitioner. Versus Commissioner Garhwal Mandal Dehradun and others. …….Respondents. Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand. None appears for respondent no. 4. 16th April, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the grant / renewal of mining lease in favour of the respondent no. 4. One of the grievances of the petitioner is that the mining lease is granted to the respondent no. 4 near the area, which is used as cremation ground. Moreover, it is a river and a forest and therefore there has been a clear violation of law presently in force in the State of Uttarakhand. However, on perusal of the order of the State Government and the authorities of the State Government, it is found that the entire grievance of the petitioner was considered by the authorities before granting the mining lease to respondent no. 4. Since the Authorities have already considered the grievance of the petitioner and orders have been passed therein, there is no need for interference in the present matter. Moreover, 2 the petitioner has not shown as to what his locus standi in filing the present writ petition. In case it is a public interest litigation then the petitioner should have elaborated this aspect in the writ petition itself. However, there is no such averment in the writ petition. For this also the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 16.4.2009 Rathour