IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 660 of 2001 (M/B) Charan Singh S/o Sri Hukum Singh, R/o Near Rajput Dharamshala, Mauhalla Shaikhupura, Alias Kankhal, Tehsil and District Haridwar. …….. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal, through the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Uttaranchal, Dehradun. 2. M/s Usha Breco Ropeways Ltd., through its Managing Director, Having its registered office at Ansal Bhawan, 60 Kasturva Gandhi Marg, New Delhi – 110001. 3. Nagar Palika Parishad, Haridwar through its Executive Officer. 4. Administrator to the Nagar Palika Parishad, Haridwar. 5. Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd., through its managing Director, Nainital. 6. Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd., through its Managing Director, Rajpur Road, Dehradun. 7. Mussoorie Nagar Palika, Mussoorie through its Chairman. …….. Respondents Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.C. Gupta, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttaranchal. Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for respondents Nos. 3 and 4. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon. Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Hon. P.C. Pant, J. RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. (Oral) Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.C. Gupta, Standing Counsel for first respondent State of Uttaranchal. Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for respondents Nos. 3 and 4. None for respondents Nos. 5, 6 and 7. 2 2. The petitioner, claiming himself to be a public spirited person, has filed this writ petition styled as ‘Public Interest Litigation’ for the following reliefs: “a. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to respondent no. 2 not to charge the fare of Rs. 20.00 only instead of Rs. 13.00 only per person as a fare of Maa Mansa Devi Ropeway. The respondent no. 2 further be directed to submit the accurate statement of passengers since 10.7.96 and the difference of Rs. 7.00 per passenger be paid to respondent no. 3 till now. b. issue writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 to submit the accurate statement of cost and expenses incurred on establishment of ropeway and annual return of the project since very beginning upto now. c. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus to direct to the respondent no. 1, 3 and 4 that they cancelled the lease made in favour of the respondent no.2 and the respondent no. 1, 3 and 4 further be directed to give the lease to interested person through inviting application / tender by way of advertisement which will be circulated in well circulated news-papers to run the said ropeway on the lowest rate. d. a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the section 19 of the Act and declare it as ultra virus. e. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the proceeding the meeting of dated 12.12.96 and supplementary agreement dated 16.1.97 respectively (Annexure No. 5 & 6 to this petition). f. any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the public interest be passed in favour of public at large by way of this Public Interest Litigation. g. cost of the petition be awarded in the favour of petitioner.” 3. From the documents filed along with the writ petition, we gather that second respondent Company was permitted to charge Rs. 20/- per person vide order dated 10.07.1996 passed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition No. 21174 of 1996. 3 4. It is surprising that the petitioner has tried to challenge indirectly the said order dated 10.07.1996 by filing this petition as ‘Public Interest Litigation’. If the petitioner was, at all, aggrieved by the said order, the remedy was to either challenge the said order before the Apex Court or to seek modification of the same from the Court concerned. 5. In this view of the matter, the petition filed as ‘Public Interest Litigation’ is liable to be dismissed and is, hereby, dismissed. (P.C. Pant, J.) (Rajeev Gupta, C.J.) 27.02.2006 27.02.2006 G