IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO.711 OF 2009 (M/S) Smt. Shiksha Tyagi wife of Sri Shiv Raj Tyagi, resident of 80, Maniram Road, Rishikesh, District Dehradun. ……….. Petitioner. Versus Nagar Palika Parishad, Rishikesh through its Executive Officer and two others. ………. Respondents. Date: - May 18, 2009 Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. 1. Heard Sri Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ravi Babulkar, learned counsel for the respondents nos. 1 and 2. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner is taken on record. 3. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing o show cause notice dated 5.3.2009 issued by the Executive officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Rishikesh on some complaint by the respondent no.3. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the notice issued by the Executive Officer is without jurisdiction. In his objections, the respondent no.3 has admitted that late Gaya Prasad Brahamchari died in the year 1982. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 informed the Court that the petitioner has already filed objections before the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Rishikesh, which is pending for disposal. 5. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted for the simple reason that under the Act, the Executive Officer is competent to pass mutation order in favour of either party. If there is some complaint that the order was obtained by misrepresentation, he may issue show cause notice. The Executive Officer has not recalled the mutation order but has only issued show cause notice to explain why the order be not recalled. The petitioner has an alternative remedy to file objections against the show cause notice which have already been filed by the petitioner. The Executive Officer is directed to decide the same. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by the order of the Executive Officer, he may assail that order before the competent forum. 6. In view of the above facts, the writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. (Interim Relief Application No. 3804 of 2009 stands disposed of.) (B.S. Verma, J.) 18.05.2009 RMY