Jugmemt N.N. Mathur, J.-The instant PIL has been filed claiming to be in the public interest to protect the properties of the Devasthan Department. 2. It appears that subject property belonging to Temple was sold on 010.1968 to Shri Mohan Lal Soni, which was subsequently sold to Smt. Veena Johri, Ashok Johri and Seema Johri. Further Smt. Malti Johri sold the said property to Mahendra U.Jeen Steel Company on 210.1990. Thereafter, after obtaining NOC from the Municipal Corporation, Udaipur an application was prepared for construction of a hotel. It appears that the 4th respondent M/s Vision Hotel & Resorts, Udaipur is constructing a hotel on the said land. The petitioner seeks direction to cancel the sale-deed of the year 1968. The contention of the petitioner is that the property belong to Vithalnath Temple as dolly land. As per the law, the land in the name of idol cannot be sold. The illegality was brought to the notice by a public spirited person namely Dr. Tej Rajdan before the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, Udaipur. The said authority passed an order in favour of the Temple Trust. However, the Commissioner, Devasthan has passed an order reversing the decision of the Assistant Commissioner. He also made a recommendation to the State Government for regularization of the sale. The State Government has passed an order for regularization of the sale. 3. A detailed reply to the writ petition has been filed. The matter was contested before the Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner, Devasthan. It is averred that a permission has been granted by the Municipal Corporation, Udaipur for construction of the hotel. A huge amount has been deposited with the various authorities, which granted the permission to raise the construction. The Pollution Control Board has also given NOC. More than Rs. 4 Crore has been spent on the construction. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties at admission stage, we are of the view that no issue of public interest is involved in the instant petition. There are contentious issues which can be decided only by an appropriate forum. The PIL cannot be said to be an appropriate remedy to decide the contentious issues. Without entering into merit of the case, we are guided by the observation of the Apex Court in Guruvayoor Devasom Managing Committee & Anr. vs. C.K. Rajan & Ors., reported in 2003 (7) SCC Page 546. The PIL cannot be said to be an appropriate remedy to decide the contentious issues. Without entering into merit of the case, we are guided by the observation of the Apex Court in Guruvayoor Devasom Managing Committee & Anr. vs. C.K. Rajan & Ors., reported in 2003 (7) SCC Page 546. In not entertaining the instant writ petition in the name of PIL. The Apex Court has observed that PIL is not a pill or panacea for all wrongs. The Apex Court has recently in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in 2005 (1) SCC 590 has warned the High Courts to be extremely careful in entertaining the PIL as on account of such petitions the routine work of the Courts have suffered. The Court observed as follows :- “It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts numerous days are wasted, which time otherwise could have spent for disposal of cases of genuine litigants”. 5. We are conscious of the pro-active role of this Court in a genuine PIL. We are committed to pursue such matters but not a PIL of the nature in hand. 6. In view of aforesaid, the writ petition stands dismissed without prejudice to rights and contentions of the parties before the appropriate forum.