JUDGMENT : V.K. Bist, J. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:- “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent nos. 1 to 3 to take over the entire management of Chaiti Mela in his hand, including the recovery of rent for using the Government land from concerned persons/businessman and deposit the same to Government account, for next fair. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondent no.4 from recovering the rent from concerned persons upon the Government land.” 2. Briefly stated, that the petitioner is the resident of Kashipur city. He is aggrieved by the inaction of respondent-authorities against respondent no.4 i.e. organizer of the fair, who is allegedly collecting rent from several shopkeepers/businessmen, who have installed their temporary shops at public land during CHAITI MELA. 3. The principal contention of the petitioner is that the respondent no.4 has no authority to recover rent from the said businessmen/shopkeepers, owing to the fact that the true owner of the land in question is alone authorised to recover any rent, if so imposed on the temporary vendors. It is also stated that any rent, so recovered, be deposited with the State exchequer. 4. The case of the petitioner is that during every NAVRATRAS, specifically in the month of March and April, CHAITI MELA is being organized at the vicinity of BAL SUNDARI MATA TEMPLE CAMPUS, KASHIPUR, where lakhs of devotee and pilgrims come for offering worship the Goddess and they also visit the MELA area, during the said period. Earlier the said fair was being organized at the private land, adjacent to the said temple and now it is being organized at the Government land surrounding the temple. The organizer i.e. the respondent no.4 is collecting rent from the businessmen/ shopkeepers, who come there and installed their shops. 5. It is further contended that the respondent no.4, without there being any prior permission, published tender notices in daily news papers from interested businessmen for installing their shops and collecting money. It is vehemently contended that the action of respondent no.4 is entirely illegal, because the said organizer cannot collect money from the businessmen/ shopkeepers, who have installed their shops on the land owned by the Government. 6. We have heard Mr. Kantiram Shrma, Advocate for the petitioner as also Mr. It is vehemently contended that the action of respondent no.4 is entirely illegal, because the said organizer cannot collect money from the businessmen/ shopkeepers, who have installed their shops on the land owned by the Government. 6. We have heard Mr. Kantiram Shrma, Advocate for the petitioner as also Mr. HM Bhatia, learned Brief Holder for the State and have also gone through the entire material available on record. 7. We do not find any iota of evidence in support of the contents of the writ petition, which would exhibit that a huge amount is being collected, that too, from imposing rent upon the vendors or the businessmen/ shopkeepers who have installed their shops at the vicinity of said temple. In such circumstances, we are not inclined to pass any order in this Public Interest Litigation. However, it is open for the petitioner to approach the competent authority by way of filing representation raising all his grievances, alongwith a copy of this order and incase, such a representation is moved, it is open for the District Administration to take appropriate action in the matter in accordance with law. 8. This disposes of the writ petition.