IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.61 of 2011 (PIL) Ajay Prasad Uniyal … Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others … Respondents Dated: September 30, 2011 Coram Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Prafulla C. Pant, J. (Oral) Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate, present for respondent no.3. Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate, present for respondent no.4. This public interest litigation was registered under the orders of Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice on an application received from one Ajay Prasad Uniyal of Mussoorrie, who has prayed that increase in the fare rate of ropeways within the municipal limits of Mussoorrie be quashed. Learned counsel for Nagar Palika, Mussoorrie submitted that the increase in the fare was made as per the Resolution of the Municipal Board, passed under the applicable Rules. Attention of this Court is also drawn to order dated 7.12.2010 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in a similar kind of public interest litigation in respect of ropeways from Haridwar to Mansa Devi Temple. This Court vide the said order in Writ Petition (PIL) No.98 of 2009 observed as under: - “This is a frivolous writ petition filed under the garb of public interest litigation. There is a cable car facility for taking passengers to Mansa Devi Temple at Haridwar, which has been set up by respondent no.4. It is contended that respondent no.4, although is entitled in terms of lease granted in his favour to charge passengers Rs.13/- for to and fro journey for Mansa Devi Temple, it is charging illegally Rs.48/-. Respondent No.4 is a private citizen and not an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Before filing the present writ petition, 2 no effort was made to ascertain whether a writ of mandamus could be issued asking the respondent no.4 to reduce the fare from Rs.48/- to Rs.13/-, and whether the writ court has any jurisdiction to do so. 2. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed without any order as to costs.” In the present case, the increase in fare appears to be as per the Resolution of the Board, passed under the Rules. As such, it cannot be said that the increase in the fare violates any right or fundamental right of any citizen. Therefore, this writ petition, in the form of public interest litigation, is dismissed. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 30.09.2011 Rdang