IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 1216 of 2004. Date of Decision: March 18, 2008. Sarv Sudhar Sabha, Daryari …..Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others ……Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jagdish Bhalla, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. H.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. Advocate General & Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. O.P. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Jagdish Bhalla, C. J. (Oral): In the form of Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner wants Ayurvedic Dispensary to be demolished. It further prayed that there are encroachments all over the area including the ponds and the cremation centre. Response filed by the Authorities indicates that the encroachment in the cremation area has been removed. Further, certain details have been indicated with regard to the efforts and steps taken for the removal of the encroachments. Cases have already been filed to 2 remove the encroachers and numbers of encroachers have been evicted as well. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the light of the latest status report now there are more encroachments and certain directions be issued for the same. Initially we will deal with the encroachments indicated in the Writ Petition and thereafter we will deal with the encroachments indicated in the status report. As far as the encroachments indicated in the Writ Petition are concerned, all necessary steps have already been taken by the Authorities, however, we are of the considered opinion that demolition of Ayurvedic Dispensary cannot come within the ambit of public interest litigation. To no stretch of imagination it can be said that the Dispensary where number of ailing persons come and are helped out by the Doctors can be demolished in the garb of public interest litigation. . It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that since the mutation is bad in law the Dispensary should be demolished. Such prayers are deprecated and it is a fit case for imposition of costs against those who wants Ayurvedic Dispensary to be demolished. However, when we examined the prayer part of the Writ Petition, we found that the petitioner has only prayed for the quashing of mutation in favour of the Ayurveda Department. Therefore, we restrain to impose any costs. As far as the encroachment indicated in the Petition is concerned, we find from the perusal of the response that all effective steps have already been taken and no further directions are required. However, we would like to make observations that the ponds having water should be protected in the light of the spirit of the Constitution of India. It would be open for the State Government if the certain ponds have dried up and are 3 still lying without water to ensure that they are filled up with water so that they should be used by the public at large. The petitioner wants almost a monitoring of the area through this public interest litigation on the basis of status reports, three of which have already come on record. We are of the considered opinion that this Court cannot sit as a Monitoring Committee and no further monitoring would be possible for this Court, however, if the petitioner Organization is a public spirited Organization, they shall make their own efforts that no encroachment is made, to make certain efforts to stop the encroachment. We further provide that the State shall also try to make out a mechanism so as at the earliest the Authorities must come to know that there is an encroachment on the Government land. It would also be the duty of the citizens including the petitioner Organization that if there is any encroachment they shall inform the Government Authorities. With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. CMP No. 1994 of 2004. In view of the orders passed in the main matter, interim order dated 29th December, 2004 is vacated. The application is disposed of. CMP No. 2428 of 2005. Infructuous. ( Jagdish Bhalla ), C.J. March 18, 2008. ( V.K. Ahuja ), J. (rks)