IN THE HIGH COURT OF UT RAKHAND AT NAINITAL TA Writ Petition No. 1816 of 2007 (M/S) Devendra Dutt Uniyal and others. ……Petitioners. Versus District Magistrate/Rehabilitation Director, Tehri Dam Project New Tehri and others. …….Respondents. Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl.C.S.C. for the respondent No.1. Mr. U.K. Uniyal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for T.H.D.C. Dated: -15-04-2010 Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for rehabilitation of the petitioners by allotting the land/plots to the petitioners as allotted to respondent No.5 to rehabilitate them. The grievance of the petitioners as has been stated in para No. 12 to the writ petition is that one Sri Pushkar Singh Chauhan (Respondent No.5) whose house was also in the same position and was situated near the sewerage treatment plant has been given the compensation. Some other villagers have also been compensated. It is relevant to mention here that the houses of the petitioners are very near to the sewerage treatment plant, inspite of that their claim is not being considered while the claim of respondent No.5 whose house was situated at more distance than petitioners have already constructed. Instead of making representation before the respondent No.1, the petitioners have approached this court. 2 Earlier writ petition No. 1092 of 2006 (M/B) was filed by the petitioners wherein a prayer was made to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent No. 1 to decide the representation of the petitioners annexed as annexure No. 4 to that writ petition by speaking and reasoned order within some stipulated time. The grievance of the petitioner was in that writ petition that in New Tehri where the respondent No.3 has constructed sewerage treatment plant in most unhygienic condition, which is causing pollution because of ill maintenance of the sewerage treatment plant. In the fact and circumstance of that writ petition, the Division Bench of this Court had directed on 31-08-2006 to the petitioner to move a representation before the authorities of T.H.D.C., if the T.H.D.C. has constructed the sewerage treatment plant, for proper maintenance of the sewerage treatment plant so that the plant may not cause pollution spreading diseases to the habitants of the said village. In case, any representation is preferred to the respondent No. 3 and the sewerage treatment plant has been constructed by the T.H.D.C., the authorities concerned are directed to take decision on the representation and maintain the sewerage treatment plant in hygienic way so that no pollution may cause to the habitants of the village as well as in the nearby areas. By perusal of annexure No. 9 to the writ petition, it reveals that the representation of the petitioners was rejected on 14-11-2006 by the T.H.D.C on the ground that the Sewerage treatment plant was constructed by the Jal Nigam and on 29-05-2006 the said Sewerage treatment plant had already been handed over to the Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan. According to the petitioner the recommendation was also made by the Director of Rehabilitation on 04-09-2003 in favour of the petitioners to give the compensation to the farmers of other land and buildings. 3 Perusal of annexure No.1 shows that there is no mention to rehabilitate the farmers. The petitioners instead of approaching the respondent No.1 approached this Court for redressal of their grievance. The only authority is the respondent No.1 who may redress their grievance. I am not inclined to grant such reliefs to the petitioners in the writ jurisdiction. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to make representation before the respondent No.1, if the representation is made, the same shall be considered in view of the averment made in para 12 to the writ petition and the same shall be decided expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. With the said direction and observation, the writ petition is disposed of. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. (B.S.Verma, J.) 15-04-2010 MK