IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.701 of 2000 Decided on : December 1, 2008 Raju Thakur …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1 & 2. Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Per Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) Petitioner has challenged grant of lease of 208.88 Sqm of land, by the State Government, i.e. respondent No.1 herein, to Mandi Mittar Mandal, respondent No.3 herein, for setting up a Cultural Centre in residential area, known as Nabha Estate, situate in the town of Shimla. 2. The ground on which the grant of lease has been challenged is that respondent No.3 Mandi Mittar Mandal is not eligible for grant of lease, in respect of the site, in question, and that too for setting up a Cultural Centre. Respondent No.1 took the plea that the lease had been granted, under the provision of Himachal Pradesh Lease Rules, 1993, for public purpose, in the interest of the development of the State, keeping in view the objects of respondent No.3, which is a Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… registered society. Respondent No.3 has also taken a similar stand in its reply. Locus standi of the petitioner has also been challenged by respondent No.3. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 4. First, we would take up the objection regarding locus standi of the petitioner. Petitioner is resident of the area in which the land has been leased to respondent No.3, for setting up of Cultural Centre. His contention is that setting up of a Cultural Centre, in the midst of the residential area, is likely to have adverse impact on adolescent boys and girls, living in that area. Since the petitioner has his residence in the vicinity of the site, which has been given on lease to respondent No.3, objection regarding locus standi is over-ruled. 5. Coming to the merits of the case, respondent No.3 is a registered society and its main objects, as per its Constitution, Annexure R-3/3, are to promote social, economic and cultural activities and to promote brotherhood. According to Rule 6(6) of the Himachal Pradesh Lease Rules, 1993, a society, to be eligible for grant of lease of government property, has to be registered for literary, scientific or charitable purposes. 6. Admittedly, in the present case, respondent No.3 is not a society for any of the aforesaid three purposes, i.e. literary, scientific or charitable. Therefore, it is not eligible for grant of lease of government land, under the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Lease Rules, 1993. Hence, the writ petition …3… is allowed and the lease deed, Annexure PA, executed in favour of respondent No.3, by Collector, Shimla, respondent No.2 herein, is quashed. 7. Writ petition stands disposed of. In view of the disposal of the main petition, pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. ( R.B. Misra ), J. December 1, 2008(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J.