IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition PIL No. 41 of 2010 Sri B.D. Kandpal. .……… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others. .………. Respondents. Mr. B.D. Kandpal, petitioner in person. Mr. H.M. Raturi, Standing Counsel for the respondents. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. KHEHAR, C. J. The factual position depicted in the instant writ petition is, that there exists a famous Hanuman Temple on the Nainital-Kathgodam/Haldwani Road. It is submitted, that adjacent to the aforesaid temple, there existed a beautiful public park, which was earlier maintained by the Chief Conservator of Forest, Kumaon, Nainital. It is submitted, that various religious functions were being performed in the said park. It is pointed out, that the park was also being used by devotees to rest, walk, sunbathe and watch the setting and rising sun. After the creation of the State of Uttarakhand in the year 2000, it is alleged, that in the first instance, efforts were made to convert the park into a residential colony, however, on account of public protest, the plan to construct a residential colony there was dropped. 2. It is pointed out, that the park is now almost non-existent, as plants and trees have been uprooted and the summer house has been dismantled. It is pointed out, that even the sitting places no longer exist in the park. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is, that for the last about two months, the Forest Department has allowed some private builders to dump their debris, as also waste materials of old dismantled houses, in the area which earlier constituted the park. It is pointed out, that the petitioner made numerous protests and also submitted a representation dated 28.04.2010 to respondent Nos. 2 to 5, requesting them not to allow the site to be used as a place for dumping waste material. It is the submission of the petitioner, that 2 directions should be issued, in public interest, to maintain the park, so that visitors, tourists and public at large may benefit therefrom. 4. On being asked to demonstrate, that the park (referred to in the writ petition) was actually in existence, the petitioner invited our attention to the project report of the Eco Park, wherein the historical background of the Hanuman Temple, as also its surrounding areas, has been depicted. It emerges therefrom, that at the site, where the park was in existence, mining of minor minerals was being carried out, but the same was stopped in the year 1980. In fact, inspite of our best efforts, we have not been able to persuade the petitioner to invite our attention to any material which would link the Hanuman Temple to the park (referred to in the instant writ petition). During the course of hearing, however, the attention of the petitioner was invited (from the project report of the Eco Park) to the fact that the area, which he claims to have been earmarked for park, was being used as a graveyard. This factual position could not be controverted by the petitioner. 5. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we find no justification whatsoever, in the protest at the hands of the petitioner to the dumping of waste material on the site in question, which in our view, cannot be put to any other effective use, either linked to the Hanuman Temple or for entertainment purposes, as the same was earlier being used as a graveyard. A site has to be chosen for dumping waste materials, and if the competent authority has chosen the site, under reference, we find no infirmity therein, especially when, no alternative or better site has been suggested by the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we find no justification whatsoever to entertain the instant writ petition in public interest. 6. For the reasons recorded herein above, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C. J.) 17.05.2010 17.05.2010 G