IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No.974 of 2010 Girja Shankar Pandey S/O Ramesh Chandra Pandey, Birds Eyeview Cottage, Tallital, Nainital. … Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Urban Development, Uttarakhand Sashan Dehradun. 2. Municipal Board Nainital through its Chairman. 3. Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Nainital. … Respondents. Mr. Anil Dabral, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. K.P.Upadhyay, Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 1. Mr. D.S.Patni, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and 3. Date June 18, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief:- (a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to allot the shop to the petitioner in light of the minutes of the meeting dated 28-12-2007 with regard to the rehabilitation for his livelihood. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 3 to decide the representation of the petitioner. © Issue any other order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (d) Award cost of the petition. According to the petitioner, he is a permanent resident of Nainital and he was carrying his business of selling toys, artificial jewellery and other small articles including readymade garments at the corner of flats adjacent to Capital Cinema Nainital 2 since 1995. The petitioner was stopped by the respondent no.2 from carrying on his aforesaid business in the year 2008 on the ground that the petitioner and other hawkers are creating pollution in the Naini Lake. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner had made representation earlier in the year 1998 to the Executive Officer, Municipal Board Nainital vide Annexure No.1. The petitioner again made a representation on 6-10-2009 for allotting the open space for running his shop (copy Annexure no. 2 to the petition) but no decision has been taken thereon by the authority concerned. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is given liberty to make a fresh representation before the respondent nos. 2 and 3 for redressal of his grievance. If the representation is made, the authority concerned shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of presentation of application/representation along with certified copy of this order. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of finally. (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP