AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.
This writ petition, allegedly filed in public interest, appears more to be in the nature of a publicity oriented litigation. The petitioner, a Ward Member of the Kyarkuli Bhatta Gram Panchayat, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, allegedly in public interest, seeking a writ of mandamus to direct respondents 1 & 2 to hand over the right to manage and control the Mussoorie Lake to the Kyarkuli Bhatta Gram Panchayat after taking the same from respondent no. 3 - Nagar Palika Parishad, Mussoorie.
Both the third respondent and the Kyarkuli Bhatta Gram Panchayats are local bodies; the former a Municipality falling under Part IX A of the Constitution of India, and the latter a Gram Panchayat falling under Part IX of the Constitution of India.
It is the petitioner's grievance that, instead of entrusting the right to collect toll, and other charges, for maintenances and recreational activities at the Mussoorie Lake to the Kyarkuli Bhatta Gram Panchayat, the said rights have been entrusted and are being exercised by the third respondent for the past more than a decade.
While we may not be understood to have held that the right to collect toll and to maintain the Lake, as also to provide for recreational facilities thereat, belong to the third respondent, any grievance, which the Kyarkuli Bhatt Gram Panchayat may have, can always be agitated by them in appropriate legal proceedings.
Sri Pawan Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, while several Members of the Gram Panchayat are also aggrieved by the action of respondents 1 & 2 in not entrusting the management of the Lake to the Gram Panchayat, instead of the third respondent, the Gram Panchayat is not able to avail its judicial remedies since the Gram Pradhan is not interested in doing so. No such assertion is to be found in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition.
Be that as it may, even if, as is now contended before us by Sri Pawan Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, that a majority of the Members of the Gram Panchayat are aggrieved because the management of the said Lake has not been entrusted to them, and instead has been entrusted to the third respondent, it is always open to them to raise this issue in the Gram Panchayat meeting; and move a resolution for the Gram Panchayat to initiate legal proceedings in this regard.
We see no reason to entertain this writ petition at the behest of an individual Ward Member of the Gram Panchayat. As we were satisfied that the writ petition as filed is a publicity oriented litigation, we were initially inclined to dismiss the writ petition with exemplary costs. Sri Pawan Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, would, however, request this Court not to do so contending that the petitioner does not have the financial capacity to pay such exemplary costs. The writ petition is dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs.