JUDGMENT Jain, CJ (Oral). With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition was heard and being disposed off finally. 2. This letter petition, which was treated as Public Interest Litigation, has been filed with a prayer that necessary directions be issued to respondents for non-construction of tunnels at Rugrab, North Sikkim, as mentioned in the petition, in future. The relevant paragraphs of writ petition are as under: - “That this is to inform Your Honour that the Indian Army had constructed a Tunnel at Rugrab, North Sikkim for their own purpose without our consent. That unfortunately, due to the said tunnel, several natural disasters had already occurred and washed away private landed properties and lives of the concern public of the said locality. This is also to inform Your Honour that the said land is very religious and the public’s of the said locality conducts puja and religious ceremonies at the said location. In the view of above, we are earnestly seeking for kind order and approval from your benign end to pass favourable order to the concern authority for non construction of such Tunnels due to which we are facing great hardships and difficulties and putting engrave danger to the lives and properties of the public of the said locality. We therefore, request Your Honour to be kind enough to consider the above stated facts and kindly instruct or pass order to the concern authority to grant our request for non construction of such tunnels in future for our safety as prayed for in a above. ” 3. The matter was listed before this Court on 11.11.2013 and the following order was passed: - “This is a letter petition, which was handed over to Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.R. Dave, Judge, Supreme Court of India, when his Lordship visited the State of Sikkim. The same was forwarded to this Court. We have examined the letter petition. Admit. Issue notice. Mr. Karma Thinlay, learned Central Govt. Counsel is directed to accept notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2. Ms. Pollin Rai, learned Asstt. Govt. Advocate is also directed to accept notice on behalf of respondent No. 3. A copy of the letter petition be made available to both of them by the Registry forthwith. Reply, if any, be filed by 23.12.2013. Counsel is directed to accept notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2. Ms. Pollin Rai, learned Asstt. Govt. Advocate is also directed to accept notice on behalf of respondent No. 3. A copy of the letter petition be made available to both of them by the Registry forthwith. Reply, if any, be filed by 23.12.2013. The High Court Legal Services Committee is directed to appoint any panel advocate on behalf of the applicants. List on 17.02.2014.” 4. The respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed their joint report. Respondent No. 3 has also filed a separate report. Paragraphs 1 to 6 of the report of respondents No. 1 and 2 are reproduced as under: - “1. That I am the Ground Liaison Officer at 112 Mountain Brigade, Chaten, North Sikkim and subordinate to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and competent to sign and file the instant report. 2. That during the visit of North Sikkim by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.R. Dave, Judge, Supreme Court of India, the Public of Lachen had filed a complaint regarding the construction of tunnel by the army at Rughrap, North Sikkim. 3. That vide order dated 11.11.2013 this Hon’ble Court has been pleased to take the matter as Public Interest Litigation and directed the respondents to file reply before this Hon’ble Court. 4. The construction of the tunnel started during the Year 2009 in an area called Gochung by the army, though certain improvement continued till the year 2011. The nearest habitat/village Chopta is approximately 12 Kms away. It is submitted that no objection, whatsoever were raised by any local authorities during constructions of the tunnel. The construction of the tunnel was purely for defence purpose. 5. It is submitted that post filing of the instant PIL, the deponent herein, met the Pipons of Lachen and they ascribed the natural calamities between 2011-2012 to constructions of tunnel stating the mountains were sacred and the construction in them desecrated the same. The answering respondent reassured that henceforth no such construction would be undertaken without prior intimation to the pipons of lichen. 6. That this report has been filed in compliance to the order dated 11.11.2013 of this Hon’ble Court.” 5. The answering respondent reassured that henceforth no such construction would be undertaken without prior intimation to the pipons of lichen. 6. That this report has been filed in compliance to the order dated 11.11.2013 of this Hon’ble Court.” 5. Respondents No. 1 and 2, in paragraph 5 of the report have specifically mentioned that they have assured the Pipon of Lachen that no construction of tunnels would be undertaken in future without prior intimation to the Pipon of Lachen. It is needless to observe that as and when any tunnel is required to be constructed, the Pipon of Lachen will be informed and Pipon of Lachen will be at liberty to challenge the action of respondents, in accordance with law. 6. With the aforesaid observation and liberty, the writ petition stands disposed off.