A.K. Patnaik, J.— This is a public interest litigation filed by Shri Tana Ckamdir Teli, Member of Legislative Assembly of 14 Doimukh Assembly Constituency (ST Constituency) of the State of Arunachal Pradesh for certain reliefs against the eviction drives and demolition of the existing infrastructure and amenities available in the areas bordering Assam and Arunachal Pradesh comprised in the said 14 Doimukh Assembly Constituency. 2. The facts as stated in the writ petition briefly are that prior to January 21, 1972 the areas now comprised in the State of Arunachal Pradesh were part of the State of Assam. By the North Eastern Areas (Re-organisation) Act, 1972, these areas were formed into a Union Territory with effect from 21st January, 1972, and the said Union Territory was named as Arunachal Pradesh, and subsequently the said Union Territory was converted into the State of Arunachal Pradesh. But after the constitution of the said Union Territory and the State of Arunachal Pradesh, the demarcation of territorial boundaries between the State of Arunachal Pradesh and the State of Assam was to take place and various meetings between the representatives of the two States took place from time to time for the said purpose of demarcation. On 11.1.1976 a meeting was held at Itanagar attended amongst others by the then Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh, Shri P.K. Thungon, and the then Home Minister of Assam, and it was, inter alia, agreed in the said meeting for review of boundary demarcation that pending study of the concerned cases, no eviction would be undertaken from either side of the inner line and the status quo would be maintained. Thereafter, on 20th March, 1979 a second round of discussion was held pursuant to some incidents resulting in tension in the Assam Arunachal Pradesh border and pursuant to the said discussion it was, inter alia, agreed by the Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh that they would take steps to restrain the people of Arunachal Pradesh from any attempted encroachment on the Assam side, and it was agreed by the Chief Minister of Assam that he would withdraw the Armed police from the border with a view to defuse tension. It was further agreed in the said meeting held on 20.3.79 by the two Chief Ministers that in the event of Assam Govt finding it necessary to carry out eviction in any area, the Arunachal Pradesh Govt would be informed about the same before-hand so that they could either arrange for the withdrawal of the encroachers themselves or depute an officer to be present during the eviction. On 22.5.83, a tripartite meeting was held comprising of the representatives of the Union Govt. Assam Govt and Arunachal Pradesh Govt. The said meeting, in which the Chief Ministers of Assam and Arunachal Pradesh were present, noted that the High Powered Tripartite Committee comprising of the representatives of the Govt of Assam and Arunachal Pradesh and Survey of India had delineated the entire boundary on the map and that the ground demarcation had also been done for 396 KMs of Assam-Arunachal Pradesh boundary leaving 308 KMs of the boundary to be demarcated on the ground, and it was agreed in the said meeting that the Survey of India should be requested to undertake the ground demarcation of the remaining portion of the boundary immediately and complete it within December, 1983. At the said meeting held on 22.5.83, the two Chief Ministers further agreed that instructions would be issued to the officials of both the sides to exercise restraint and to ensure that matters were not precipitated and peace maintained all along the border. Again on 30.1.84, the two Chief Ministers met at Sibsagar in Assam and reviewed the progress of demarcation of boundary between the two States. On 24.9.85, the Chief Secretaries of the States of Assam and Arunachal Pradesh discussed the progress of ground survey of the boundary between the two States at Guwahati. On 25.2.86, the Chief Ministers of Assam and Arunachal Pradesh met again at Itanagar and discussed the issue relating to boundary between the States of Assam and Arunachal Pradesh. Thereafter, on 9.9.86, the Chief Secretary of Assam and the Chief Secretary of Arunachal Pradesh discussed the said issue. On 25.2.86, the Chief Ministers of Assam and Arunachal Pradesh met again at Itanagar and discussed the issue relating to boundary between the States of Assam and Arunachal Pradesh. Thereafter, on 9.9.86, the Chief Secretary of Assam and the Chief Secretary of Arunachal Pradesh discussed the said issue. On 10.7.87, the Chief Ministers of Assam and Arunachal Pradesh met at Guwahati and discussed the issue relating to boundary between Assam and Arunachal Pradesh and agreed that the demarcation of the boundary should be examined sector by sector and in certain areas where the Arunachal Pradesh Govt had no objection, demarcation should be taken up by the Survey of India and in other sectors the Arunachal Pradesh Govt would submit concrete proposals and justification in support of adjustments proposed, and discussion should start on those proposals at official level. It was further agreed in the said meeting held on 10.7.87 that status quo as per agreement of 12.4.79 between the Chief Ministers of Assam and Arunachal Pradesh should be maintained and problems, if any, arising out or violation of 1979 Agreement should be sorted out in discussion at the official level. This meeting was followed by an official level discussion between the officers of the two States on4.7.88. Thereafter, on 3.1.8.91, a meeting took place between the Chief Ministers of Assam and Arunachal Pradesh and the boundary problem between the two States were discussed and certain decisions were taken, and it was, inter alia, agreed that in respect of disputed areas, status quo should be maintained and no eviction of people or demolition of houses and properties should be undertaken by both the Govts in the disputed areas, but no fresh construction or encroachment would be allowed in the disputed areas. On 29.6.92, another meeting was held between the Chief Ministers of Assam and Arunachal Pradesh and their officials on the boundary problem between Himachal Pradesh and Assam. On 29.6.92, another meeting was held between the Chief Ministers of Assam and Arunachal Pradesh and their officials on the boundary problem between Himachal Pradesh and Assam. On 12.8.95 a meeting was again held at Itanagar on the inter-State boundary matters between the two States when the Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh and the Minister, PWD, Industry, Youth Affairs and Plain & Backward Area, Assam, amongst others, were present and after detailed discussion the meeting recommended that all the past agreements between the two States should be honoured; that no breach of peace would be allowed to take place in the disputed areas; and any conflict arising in the disputed areas should be settled as was agreed upon by the Chief Ministers of Assam and Himachal Pradesh in the agreement reached between them and that maintenance and repair works of building/roads and other public utility services should be allowed to be undertaken by the respective authorities of the two States in the disputed areas in respect of such assets to honour the status quo as was agreed to by the two Chief Ministers on 10.7.87. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the aforesaid agreements between the Chief Ministers of the States of Assam and Arunachal Pradesh for maintenance of status quo in the disputed areas, the officers of the State of Assam, and particularly, the forest officials of Assam have been conducting eviction drives causing huge damage to the properties of local people of Arunachal Pradesh. In this context, the petitioner has stated that on 5.2.97 at Deuka Village about 46 forest officials belonging to Assam entered into the village and destroyed the Primary School buildings, drinking water supply well and granary houses, and again on 5.3.97 another eviction was conducted by the Assam forest officials led by the Divisional Forest Officer, North Lakhimpur, at Borsetum "Village under Kimin Revenue Circle and destroyed ring-well, dwelling house, etc. The petitioner has further stated in the writ petition hat the State of Assam has filed Original Suit No. 1 of 1989 before the Supreme Court of India challenging the action of the Election Commission in treating the said disputed areas bordering the State of Arunachal Pradesh as part of the Parliamentary Constituencies of the State of Arunachal Pradesh during the elections of 1989. It has further been stated in the writ petition that by an interim order dated 10.11.89, the Supreme Court has directed the Election Commission to hold elections in the disputed areas in the manner as indicated by the Court in order dated 10.1.89 in CMP No.32535/89 in Original Suit No.2 of 1989 filed by the State of Assam in which similar dispute has arisen with regard to the disputed areas bordering the State of Assam and the State of Nagaland. It has been further stated in the writ petition that in both the aforesaid cases the interim arrangements as allowed by the Supreme Court have been continuing and that the Similar policy of not disturbing the existing position in the disputed areas till the border disputes are finally resolved through negotiation or otherwise, need to be maintained to avoid unnecessary escalation of tension in the border areas and to avoid unnecessay hardship to the inhabitants of the disputed areas. In the aforesaid facts as stated in the writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that the action of the respondents in carrying out the eviction drives, demolition of the existing infrastructure and amenities available to the areas bordering Assam, and more specifically the areas comprised in the 14 Doimukh Assembly Constituency bordering Assam, be declared as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. The petitioner has prayed for a direction on the concerned respondents not to indulge in such eviction or demolition drives and to maintain status quo in the said areas and allow developmental works in the- areas till the disputes are resolved. The petitioner has also prayed for interim orders during the pendency of the civil rule directing the concerned respondents not to carry out any eviction or demolition drives in the disputed areas and not to obstruct developmental works in the areas and to maintain status quo in terms of the agreements. 3. When this writ petition was moved before us on 16.5.97 by Mr. A. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner, we entertained a doubt as to whether the writ petition raised a dispute between the States of Assam and Arunachal Pradesh and was such over which the Supreme Court had original jurisdiction under Article 131 of the Constitution to the exclusion of all other Courts and as to whether the writ petition was maintainable under Article 226 of the Constituion. WQ therefore called upon the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A. Roy, learned Advocate General. Arunachal Pradesh. Mr. NN Saikia, and the learned Advocate General, Assam, Mr. PG Baruah, to address us on the question of maintainability of the writ petition. 4. Mr. A. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that Article 131 of the Constitution conferred exclusive original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court over any dispute between two or more States, but this was not a dispute between two or more States as the writ petition has been filed by an MLA to safeguard the right of the people belonging to Arunachal Pradesh residing in the areas bordering between Arunachal Pradesh and Assam. He submitted that the rights of the people of Arunachal Pradesh residing in the said areas bordering between the two States to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution are jeopardised by eviction drives and damage to basic amenities of life caused by the action of the forest officials of the State of Assam, and the High Court not only had the power but duty bound under Article 226 of the Constitution to prevent violation of the rights of the people under Article 21 of the Constitution. He further argued that the averments in the writ petition would show that the action on the part of the forest officials of the State of Assam is contrary to the rule of law and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution inasmuch no reasonable procedure is being followed by the forest officials while evicting the people of Arunachal Pradesh from the areas bordering between Assam and Arunachal Pradesh. Mr. Roy cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545 , for the proposition that reasonable procedure has to be followed for removing encroachers, if any, in the areas bordering between the States of Arunachal Pradesh and Assam. Mr. Roy cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545 , for the proposition that reasonable procedure has to be followed for removing encroachers, if any, in the areas bordering between the States of Arunachal Pradesh and Assam. He also cited the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of State of Bihar vs. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 1446 ; State of Karnataka vs. Union of India, (1977) 4 SCC 408; State of Rajasthan vs. Union of India, AIR 1977 SC 1360 and Union of India vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1984 SC 1675 in support of his submission that the dispute in the present writ petition was not between the two States falling under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 131 of the Constitution and that it could be entertained by the High Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. Mr. NN Saikia, learned Advocate General, State of Arunachal Pradesh, relying on the judgments of the Supreme Court cited by Mr. A. Roy. learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that this being not a dispute between the two States, could be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution by the High Court. He further submitted that on a reading of the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner is seeking to protect the rights of the people of Arunachal Pradesh residing in the areas bordering between the State of Arunachal Pradesh and the State of Assam against eviction by forest officials of the State of Assam. He submitted that Rule 18 (3) of the Rules made under the Assam Land & Revenue Regulation requires a notice to be issued to an encroacher before eviction is carried out against him. But in the present case, it appears that eviction of the people alleged to be encroachers is being carried out in violation of the said provision contained in the rules under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation. Mr. RP Sharma. learned Senior Govt Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh, supplemented the aforesaid contention of Mr: NN Saikia, learned Advocate General. But in the present case, it appears that eviction of the people alleged to be encroachers is being carried out in violation of the said provision contained in the rules under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation. Mr. RP Sharma. learned Senior Govt Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh, supplemented the aforesaid contention of Mr: NN Saikia, learned Advocate General. Arunachal Pradesh, by pointing out that the Gauhati High Court is a common High Court of the seven North Eastern States of India including the State of Arunachal Pradesh and the State of Assam and such a common High Court as contemplated under Article 231 of the Constitution has jurisdiction to resolve the disputes of the nature involved in the present writ petition relating to rights of the people residing in the areas bordering between the two States of Assam and Arunachal Pradesh. 6. Mr. P.G. Baruah, learned Advocate General, Assam, on the other hand, contended that a reading of the various averments in the writ petition would show that there is absolutely no pleading based on the rights of the people of the State of Arunachal Pradesh residing in the areas bordering the two States under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and that the whole case in the writ petition is founded on different agreements between the Chief Ministers of the two States of Assam and Arunachal Pradesh. According to Mr. Baruah, the dispute as raised in the writ petition is really a dispute between the two States over which the Supreme Court has exclusive original jurisdiction under Article 131 of the Constitution. Mr. Baruah further submitted that the averments made in paragraph 25-A of the writ petition would show that in fact the State of Assam has filed Original Suit No.1 of 1980 before the Supreme Court raising a dispute against the State of Arunachal Pradesh in respect of the areas bordering the two States of Assam and Arunachal Pradesh, and the said suit is still pending before the Supreme Court. He cited the judgment of a Full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of State vs. Union of India, AIR 1971 P&H 155 , for his submission that even the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is excluded over a dispute between the two States and the Supreme Court has exclusive original jurisdiction under Article 131 of the Constitution to decide such a dispute. He further submitted that the petitioner is an MLA of the State of Arunachal Pradesh, and appears to have filed this public interest litigation for a political purpose and the Court should not enter into the political controversy relating to the border dispute between the two States and should dismiss this writ petition in limine. 7. We have carefully perused the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of State of Bihar vs. Union of India, State of Karnataka vs. Union of India, State of Rajasthan vs. Union of India and Union of India vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), cited by Mr. A. Roy. learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. NN Saikia. learned Advocate General. Arunachal Pradesh, as well as the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of State vs. Union of India (supra), cited by Mr. PG Baruah, learned Advocate General. Assam, and we find that the view taken by the Supreme Court and the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the said decisions is that it is only in case of dispute between the Union of India and one or more States; or between Union of India and any State or States on one side and one or more other States on the other; or between two or more States, that the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction under Article 131 of the Constitution to decide the dispute in so far as the dispute involves any question whether of law or fact on which the existence or extent of legal right depends, and the High Court would have no jurisdiction over such a dispute under Article 226 of the Constitution. But where a dispute is raised by a party other than the Union of India or a State by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, such a dispute will not be covered under the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 131 of the Constitution. In the case of State of Bihar vs. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 1446 , the Supreme Court held thus : "Apart from these special provisions a dispute which falls within the ambit of Article 131 can only be determined in the forum mentioned therein, namely, the Supreme Court of India, provided there has not been impleaded in any said dispute any private party, be it a citizen or a firm or a corporation along with a State either jointly or in the alternative. A dispute in which such a private party is involved must be brought before a Court, other than this Court, having jurisdiction over the matter." 8. The present writ petition has not been filed by either the Union of India or any State and has instead been filed by Shri TC Telli, who claims to be the MLA of 14 Doimukh Assembly Constituency of the State of Anmachal Pradesh. A reading of the facts as stated in the writ petition and as briefly narrated in para 2 of this judgment and the reliefs claimed in the writ petition would show that no dispute between the State of Arunachal Pradesh and the State of Assam as such has been sought to be referred to this Court for adjudication, though reference has been made to the agreements between the Chief Ministers of the aforesaid two States at different meetings relating to demarcation of the boundary between the two States necessitate by formation of separate State of Arunachal Pradesh out of the areas earlier included in the State of Assam. Hence the present writ petition is not one to. which Article 131 of the Constitution is attracted so as to bar the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 9. But the High Court would exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution only where the legal rights of either the petitioner or any person on whose behalf the petitioner has filed the writ petition are affected or threatened. 9. But the High Court would exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution only where the legal rights of either the petitioner or any person on whose behalf the petitioner has filed the writ petition are affected or threatened. The pleadings in the present writ petition as narrated briefly in para 2 of this judgment would show that the entire case is founded on the agreements between the representatives of the two States of Assam and Amnachal Pradesh from time to time in different meetings to maintain status quo in the disputed areas and the breach of the said agreements for maintenance of status quo by eviction and demolition drives carried out by the forest officials of the State of Assam, and no facts have been pleaded in the writ petition showing specifically that any legal right, constitutional or statutory, of the people residing in the areas bordering between the States of Arunachal Pradesh and Assam has either been affected or threatened. 10. Mr. A. Roy. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, contended that the rights of the people of the State of Amnachal Pradesh residing in the areas bordering between the two States, under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, have been affected by eviction and demolition drives carried out by the forest officials of the State of Assam inasmuch as reasonable and fair procedure has not been adopted by the forest officials of Assam while carrying out the eviction drives in the concerned border areas or the demolition of structures in the said areas. Mr. Roy cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545 in support of his submission that Article 21 of the Constitution guaranteed to every person protection of his right to livelihood and against eviction which is not consistent with a reasonable procedure. On an examination of the said decision of the Supreme : Court in the case of Olga Tellis (supra), we find that the Supreme Court while holding that the right to life conferred by Article 21 includes the right to livelihood also held that Article 21 of the Constitution does not put an absolute embargo on the deprivation of life or personal liberty but provides that such deprivation has to be according to the procedure established by law. The Supreme Court further held that the procedure established by law has to be exercised reasonably and that section 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act which conferred a discretion on the Commissioner to cause an encroachment by a pavement dweller to be removed with or without notice was not unreasonable. In para 57 of the judgment, the Supreme Court summarised its conclusion as follows : "To summarise, we hold that no person has the right to encroach, by erecting a structure or otherwise, on footpaths, pavements or any other place reserved or earmarked for a public purpose like, for example, a garden or a playground; that the provision contained in section 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act is not unreasonable in the circumstances of the case..." 11. In the writ petition, no pleading whatsoever has been made about the description of the specific areas from which encroachments are sought to be removed, or the areas where demolition of houses, buildings or other public amenities are being carried out by the forest officials of Assam; as to whether the said areas are part of the reserved forest in which no person has any right to encroach or erect structures or the said areas are those to which the provisions of Rule 18 of the Rules made under the Assam Land & Revenue Regulation are applicable as contended by Mr. NN Saikia, learned Advocate General. Arunachal Pradesh. In the absence of statement of material facts in the writ petition showing that the legal right of the people residing in the border areas have been affected or are threatened, it is difficult for the Court to take the view that the present writ petition has been filed or the purpose of protection and enforcement of constitutional or other legal right of the people of the States of Arunachal Pradesh residing in the areas bordering between the State of Assam and Arunachal Pradesh. 12. It is true, as has been submitted by Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the Court would not shirk its duty and responsibility under the Constitution to protect the constitutional rights of any person merely because the controversy raised before the Court in any particular case is of political nature. 12. It is true, as has been submitted by Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the Court would not shirk its duty and responsibility under the Constitution to protect the constitutional rights of any person merely because the controversy raised before the Court in any particular case is of political nature. Where a case m made out in a writ petition that any legal right, and particularly a fundamental right, of a person is either threatened of affected, the High Court cannot possibly hesitate to entertain the same merely because the case raises a political controversy; but before entertaining such a case the High Court even while acting as common High Court under Article 231 of the Constitution will have to apply its mind to the pleadings in the writ petition to find out as to whether any case of violation of such legal or fundamental right has at all been made out by the petitioner. In the present case, as has been held by us.above, only a case of breach of agreements between the representatives of the State of Assam and the State of Arunachal Pradesh for maintenance of status quo in the disputed areas has been made out. Unless it is further shown that such breach of agreements has resulted in violation of legal or fundamental rights of the people of Arunachal Pradesh residing in the border areas or such breach of agreements threatens their legal or fundamental right, we are unable to entertain this writ petition. 13. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.