Judgment 1. An Hon ble Member of the Legislative Assembly from the Constituency Hilsa alongwith eleven citizens of Nalanda has filed the present writ petition with a prayer that a rule of mandamus be issued to the State-respondents so arrayed; (1) the State of Bihar; (2) Inspector General, Registration, Bihar, Patna; (3) Collector, Nalanda at Biharsharif; (4) District Sub Registrar, Nalanda at Biharsharif; (5) Sub Registrar, Hilsa, District Nalanda; and (6) Sub Registrar, Rajgir, District Nalanda. The rule of mandamus is being sought as a direction that these authorities be directed to continue the registration of land (upon sale or transfer) in Nalanda District on the earlier rates of valuation, that is prior to the government order dated 26 May 2000, memo No. 388, appended as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. 2. It is contended that the rates of valuation which are in the government order of 26th May 2000 is an exercise, which is in contravention of the procedure prescribed under the Bihar Stamp (Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1995. It is contended that the enhanced valuation aggrieves the petitioners. It is further contended that the respondent No. 3, the Collector, Nalanda Biharsharif, promised verbally that the enhanced valuation, henceforth, will be only 20% on the old rates but has not kept his assurance. It is further contended that while the Government has remitted the registration fee and the Court fee by a special notification No. S.O. R-3/201/97-62 dated 8-1-2000, the Collector, Nalanda, has decided to enhance the valuation rates of the land over night and otherwise not in accordance with the procedure prescribed. 3. None of the petitioners are aggrieved nor any right of theirs is in violation, either statutory or fundamental. Neither of them are either selling their land or purchasing land so as to be affected by the enhanced rates of valuation and the consequential stamp duty as may be paid, should it be a transfer of property. 4. Plainly, this cannot be a petition, as declared to the High Court as a Public Interest Litigation. It has been filed upon a lead by an Hon ble Member of the Legislative Assembly. Neither the Hon ble Member of the Legislative Assembly nor the eleven members, who accompanying him as petitioners, are aggrieved by any order of the Collector, Nalanda at Biharsharif. It has been filed upon a lead by an Hon ble Member of the Legislative Assembly. Neither the Hon ble Member of the Legislative Assembly nor the eleven members, who accompanying him as petitioners, are aggrieved by any order of the Collector, Nalanda at Biharsharif. It is stated that they are holding the brief of the entire public as the rates of valuation have been increased cryptically. 5. This Court has reservations whether it could certify the present petition as a Public Interest Litigation. This Court would further restrain itself from issuing a writ on the present writ petition. Clearly, there is nothing, which this Court can do which the Hon ble Member of the Legislative Assembly cannot do by seeking information from the department concerned and if it is not forth- coming to put in his question at the question hour at the relevant proceedings of the House. This Court has already expressed itself, in like circumstances, in an earlier order in the matter of Narendra Kumar Singh V/s. State of Bihar C.W.J.C. No. 6828 of 2000 (Reported in 2000 (9) Pat LJR 835). 6. In the present case the fundamental right of no petitioners is infringed. Neither of the petitioners is an aggrieved person, as none of them is either a buyer or seller of property. As a generality interference is sought from the High Court. The issues which have been raised is within the capacity of a Member of the Legislative Assembly to seek an answer from the Government as of right; for such are the nuances of Parliamentary democracy. 7. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 8. When the Court heard the matter and recorded this order, learned Advocate General, Bihar, was present.Petition dismissed.