IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.10157 of 2010 Date of Decision : April 25, 2011. Hans Raj and others .....Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, CHIEF JUSTICE. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. ** Present : Mr.S.S.Brar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms.Madhu Dayal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Mr.Anil Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- RANJAN GOGOI, C.J . (Oral) This writ petition has been filed seeking a restraint on respondent No.2-Municipal Council, Mandi Gobindgarh from constructing the Parshu Ram Memorial Gate on main Post Office Road, Mandi Gobindgarh. According to the petitioners who claim to be public spirited persons, the estimated cost of construction of the main gate is Rs.9.93 lacs which is wholly unjustified and uncalled for. According to the petitioners, it will also cause hindrance in free movement of the traffic on the road which connects to the G.T.Road. The petitioners, who have laid before this Court the photographs of the construction which is being raised, also contend that if the gate is to be constructed, the width of the road on that point would be 26' which is grossly inadequate. C.W.P.No .10157 of 2010 2 Respondent No.2 has filed its reply wherein in para-5 it has been stated that the decision to construct the gate is of the general body of the Municipal Council and the same is intended for the purpose of beautification of the city. According to the respondent-Council, the construction of the gate will not cause any obstruction to the smooth movement of the traffic on the road which would still be 36' wide. The issues arising for determination in the present case, according to us, are not appropriate for adjudication by the Court in exercise of its PIL jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Whether there should be a gate; whether the width of the road after construction of the gate would be inadequate, are questions which cannot be answered by this Court by use of any effective available judicial tool. The Court, therefore, is of the considered view that it should refrain from going into the questions raised and leave the same to be decided by the elected local body or the officers of the State who are specifically entrusted such tasks. We, therefore, decline to entertain this PIL any further which is accordingly dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. The interim order, if any, is vacated. (RANJAN GOGOI) CHIEF JUSTICE April 25, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE