CWP No.171 of 2009 16.3.2009 Present: Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. A.G. for respondents No.1 to 4. Respondent No.6 Mr. Ravinder Pal Katwal is present for self and on behalf of respondent No.5. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that rule of law has not been followed in cutting the trees. The petitioner has alternative remedy under the provisions of law relating to Forest Conservation Act, 1980. Therefore, as far as cutting of trees are concerned, the petitioner has alternative remedy before the authority concerned. As far as the construction of the Community Hall is concerned, the President of opposite party No.5 who happens to be opposite party No.6 states that the construction will only start when the Revenue Authorities will grant permission for construction. In light of the above, no further interference is warranted. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application. The interim order is discharged. ( Jagdish Bhalla), CJ ( Kuldip Singh) J. March 16, 2009. (sks)