IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 222 of 2005 (M/B) 1. Sarju Prasad Tyagi S/o Late Sri N.S. Tyangi, R/o 628 Avas Vikas, District Haridwar. 2. Smt. Kanak Lata W/o Sri H.B. Akela, R/o Quarter No. 4, Type II, City Magistrate Court Compound, District Haridwar. ……… Petitioners Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal through District Magistrate, District Haridwar. 2. Municipal Board, Haridwar, through its Executive Officer. 3. Senior Superintendent of Police, District Haridwar. 4. Public Works Department, through its Executive Engineer, District Haridwar. 5. Pollution Control Board. Ganga Pradushan Niyantran, Through its Project Manager, District Haridwar. 6. Haridwar Development Authority, through its Secretary, District Haridwar. ……… Respondents. None for the petitioners. Mr. U.P.S. Negi, Addl. Advocate General for respondent Nos. 1, 3 &4. Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for respondent No.2. None for respondent No.5. Ms. Puja Banga, Advocate for respondent No.6. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. (Oral) Petitioners’ Counsel absent. Mr. U.P.S. Negi, Addl. Advocate General for respondent Nos. 1, 3 &4. Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for respondent No.2. None for respondent No.5. Ms. Puja Banga, Advocate for respondent No.6. They are heard. 2. The petitioners have filed this writ petition styled as ‘Public Interest Litigation’ for the following reliefs: “1. Issue writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus commanding respondents to remove the unauthorized encroachers from and over the public places as mentioned in the list of the encroachers in the report submitted by various departments. II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondents to ensure that the encroachments do not thrive again on the public streets of Haridwar. III. Issue a writ order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. IV. Award the cost of the petition.” 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4, it has categorically been stated that appropriate action is being taken against the encroachers, who have made encroachment over the Government land. 4. In this view of the matter, no further direction in the writ petition filed as ‘Public Interest Litigation’, now, is necessary. 5. The writ petition, therefore, is closed leaving it open to the petitioners to file another writ petition, if the action taken by respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4 is not taken to a logical end. (J. C. S. Rawat, J.) (Rajeev Gupta, C.J.) 04.08.2006 04.08.2006 G