Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 288 (UTT)

Vijay Singh Pal v. Union of India

2018-05-24

K.M.JOSEPH, SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT : K.M. Joseph, J. 1. Writ Petition (PIL) No. 105 of 2012 has been filed making the following allegations in brief: Petitioner alleges to be a social worker. He represents the State Unit of Akhil Bharti Holkar Mahasangh (Regd.). He claims to be a public spirited person and is not representing any political party nor has any personal interest over the issue. After independence, Gwalior, Indore including Malwa integrated territories of Holkar Estate has signed Covenant dated 22.04.1948, by which the new State of Madhya Bharat was formed and the entire properties are vested in the newly created State. It was agreed with between Government of India and United States of Madhya Bharat that under their further agreement dated 07.05.1949, Khasgi properties and interest accruing from Khasgi property will lapse for all times to Government of Madhya Bharat, and in lieu thereof, Government of India would pay Rs. 2,91,952/- in perpetuity w.e.f. 16.06.1948 for Budget of Holkar Estate for 1947 to 1948. One Trust Deed was executed between the successor of Raja Yashwant Rao Holkar II, namely, Her Highness Maharani Usha Raje Holkar pertaining to the properties of the estate and a new Trust was formed by the name “Khasgi Properties Devi Ahiliya Bai Holkar Charity Trust, Indore” on 27.06.1962 (Annexure-2). As the result of reorganization of States, rights and liabilities of State of Madhya Bharat stood vested with Government of Madhya Pradesh. It is stated that the entire properties of the Holkar estate as mentioned in Schedule-A of the Trust Deed and the same is vested in the State of Madhya Pradesh, in lieu of maintenance etc., it was agreed between the parties that a sum of Rs. 2,91,952/- will be paid to the newly formed Trust. The then Trustee illegally executed a Supplementary Trust Deed dated 08.03.1972, by incorporating a provision for sale of the Trust properties not only income, but any item of the corpus of the Trust of any movable or immovable to meet object of Trust, illegally despite the fact that all the properties have been vested with the Government of Madhya Pradesh, in view of the original Trust Deed dated 27.06.1962. A Resolution dated 05.06.2008 was passed by one of the Trustees, namely, Shri S.C. Malhotra and the Secretary Shri K.S. Rathore to dispose of the properties of the Trust. A Resolution dated 05.06.2008 was passed by one of the Trustees, namely, Shri S.C. Malhotra and the Secretary Shri K.S. Rathore to dispose of the properties of the Trust. A Power of Attorney was executed in favour of the eleventh respondent on 05.06.2009 granting permission for sale of immovable property provided thereunder. Thereafter, it is alleged that the Power of Attorney holder executed Sale Deeds vide Sale Deeds dated 02.09.2009 in favour of his real brother Anirudh Kumar Shikhola (apparently the 12th respondent) and his wife Smt. Nikita Shikhola (the 13th respondent). Copies of the Sale Deeds are produced as Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition. It is, thereafter, that the private respondent nos. 12 and 13 applied for mutation of their names on basis of sale deed and a copy of undertaking by way of notarized affidavit was given by them on 01.11.2011 before Accountant, Nagar Nigam, Haridwar. It is stated as Annexure No. 6 dated 01.11.2011. Next, it is important to notice the averment contained in paragraph no. 18 of the writ petition in the words of the petitioner himself. The same reads as follows: “18. That it is pertinent to mention here that first time petitioner came to know about the illegality conducted by the private respondents with regard to the property situated at Khushaghat, Haridwar.” (We may, at once, notice here that it is not clear from the said averment as to when the petitioner for the first time came to know of the alleged illegality of sale under the attorney dated 05.06.2009). 2. Thereafter, the petitioner contends to have submitted a complaint (Annexure No. 7) before the District Magistrate/Administrator. On the complaint of the petitioner, respondent no. 4, conducted an inquiry and stated that the property in question belongs to the eighth respondent, which is the State of Madhya Pradesh and the same is public property, and considering the importance of the matter, recommended a C.B.I. inquiry and further directed the fifth respondent to take steps for cancellation of the Sale Deeds. The petitioner raises no dispute regards the inquiry report and its propriety rather by the present PIL seeks its enforcement. The Inquiry Report is produced as Annexure No. 8. Petitioner’s further case is as follows: “23. The petitioner raises no dispute regards the inquiry report and its propriety rather by the present PIL seeks its enforcement. The Inquiry Report is produced as Annexure No. 8. Petitioner’s further case is as follows: “23. That it is relevant to mention here that the private respondents on the basis of vague documents regularly alienating the public properties including the property in question situated at Kushaghat, Haridwar, private respondent nos. 11 to 13 have also stopped the public to perform worship at ‘Shiv Mandir’ which is a heritage building by putting lock over the gate of the Temple. 24. That private respondents nos. 11 to 13 are illegally alienating the property in question and public is not able to visit the heritage building of ‘Shiv Mandir’ and same is being alienated by the respondent nos. 11 to 13.” 3. On the basis of these allegations, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs in Writ Petition (PIL) 105 of 2012: “(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3 to initiate high level inquiry in the matter by referring the same to the Central Bureau of Investigation (respondent no. 6) for investigation and further to punish all the responsible persons in accordance to law. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondent no. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to implement the inquiry report dated 24.5.2012 as expeditiously as possible. (iii) issue any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case be passed in favour of public. (iv) cost of the petition be awarded in favour of the public.” 4. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the twelfth respondent. Therein, the said respondent would, inter-alia, state as follows: It is stated that the dispute relates to property known as Holkar Bada situated at Mohalla Kusha Ghat, Haridwar. The area of property in dispute is 643.44 sq. meters. The Trust known as The Khasgi Devi Ahilya Bai Holkar Charities Trust, 7 Manik Bagh, Indore (we may at once notice that the Trust is arrayed as the ninth respondent in the writ petition) was the owner of the property. In the year 2007, the Trustee resolved to sell the aforesaid property for the sale consideration of Rs. 50 Lacs. The Trust known as The Khasgi Devi Ahilya Bai Holkar Charities Trust, 7 Manik Bagh, Indore (we may at once notice that the Trust is arrayed as the ninth respondent in the writ petition) was the owner of the property. In the year 2007, the Trustee resolved to sell the aforesaid property for the sale consideration of Rs. 50 Lacs. An agreement dated 08.02.2007 was executed and Rs. 15 Lacs were received as an advance. Thereafter, the Trustee authorized Shri. S.C. Malhotra to appoint general attorney for the purpose of executing the Sale Deed and perform other acts and things on behalf of the Trust vide Resolution dated 23.08.2007 and, thereafter, the Trustees vide their Resolution dated 05.06.2008 authorized Shri S.C. Malhotra (Trustee) and Shri K.S. Rathore (Secretary) to settle the matter of sale. They appointed the eleventh respondent as the Power of Attorney and authorized him to execute sale deeds etc. On 04.09.2008 again, the eleventh respondent executed three Sale Deeds in favour of respondent nos. 12 and 13. It is stated that the answering respondent i.e. purchaser was a tenant since more than 12 years in the property in dispute. The Trust was private in nature. Reference is made to the Resolutions dated 23.08.2007 and 05.06.2008. It is further stated that after executing all four Sale Deeds dated 02.09.2009 relating to the property in dispute, the answering respondents became the owner and are in possession of the property. It is further relevant to notice the following averments as contained in paragraph no. (x). The same reads as follows: “(x) That the petitioner Vijay Pal Singh is working as an Inspector in Excise Department of the State of Uttarakhand and is posted in District Haridwar. The petitioner was having his eyes over the property in dispute and trying to grab the property in dispute by hook and crook, therefore the answering respondent headed to file a Suit for permanent injunction restraining Vijay Pal Singh and his employees/agents be restring from interfering in possession of the property in dispute. The said Suit was registered on 30.04.2012 and notices were issued to Vijay Pal Singh and other for filling written statement on 24.05.2012 and framing issues on 31.05.2012.” It is further stated that the petitioner is the defendant in Suit No. 79 of 2012 for a decree of permanent injunction filed by respondent no. The said Suit was registered on 30.04.2012 and notices were issued to Vijay Pal Singh and other for filling written statement on 24.05.2012 and framing issues on 31.05.2012.” It is further stated that the petitioner is the defendant in Suit No. 79 of 2012 for a decree of permanent injunction filed by respondent no. 12 and petitioner did not put his appearance in the Suit, so far nor any written statement has been filed till date. It is further alleged that the suit was filed on 30.04.2012, notices were issued for written statement on 24.05.2012, petitioner has filed the Public Interest Litigation thereafter on 21.11.2012 for his personal gain and not in public interest and, therefore, the petition be dismissed with exemplary cost. It is relevant to notice paragraph no. 8. The same reads as follows: “8. That the contents of paragraph no. 5 of the writ petition are admitted to the extent that new State of Madhya Bharat was formed after independence, but it is incorrect to say that the disputed property has ever vested in the said State of Madhya Bharat. The petitioner has not knowingly filed the alleged covenants dated 12.04.1948 and 07.05.1949. It is submitted that the disputed properties and also the other properties which were previously under the management of muafi office (Karyalaya) of the ex-ruler of Indore state were transferred to the Khasgi Trust (The Maharani Ahilya Bai Charitable trust), Alampur Trust (The Holkar Charities Trust) vide Gazette Notification dated 16.07.1962 and published in Madhya Pradesh Gazette dated 27.07.1962 in respect of the disputed property and also other properties and has transferred all the properties to the trust as aforesaid as such the property never vested in the government of Madhya Pradesh. A photocopy of the said Gazette Notification is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. CA-5 to this counter affidavit.” 5. There is no rejoinder affidavit filed to this counter affidavit. At this juncture, it is necessary to notice that the present Writ Petition (PIL) No. 105 of 2012 was originally dismissed on 19.08.2013 by the following order of the Division Bench: “The present Public Interest Litigation has been instituted to protect a property, which allegedly belongs to the State of Madhya Pradesh, respondent No. 8 herein. Twice service was attempted upon respondent No. 8, but no evidence of effecting service upon the said respondent was available on record. Twice service was attempted upon respondent No. 8, but no evidence of effecting service upon the said respondent was available on record. In the circumstances, by an order dated 24th June, 2013, we directed the State Government to serve a copy of the writ petition upon the Chief Secretary of the State of Madhya Pradesh. By the supplementary affidavit filed, the State Government has brought on record an affidavit of service suggesting that a copy of the writ petition has been served upon the Chief Secretary of the State of Madhya Pradesh. Despite that, the State of Madhya Pradesh seems to be not interested to protect the property, allegedly, belonging to it. 2. We, accordingly, dismiss this writ petition after accepting the affidavit of service.” 6. The petitioner approached the Hon’ble Apex Court. The following is the order dated 11.12.2017 as passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court: “Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties. On a perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the High Court has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the State of Madhya Pradesh, respondent no. 8 before the High Court, has not appeared though served. Mr. A.K. Shrivastava, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Madhya Pradesh submits that an opportunity should be granted to the State to contest the matter before the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital. Considering the facts and circumstances in entirety, it is directed that the State of Madhya Pradesh shall enter appearance before the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 105/2012 and put forth its stand by way of filing a counter affidavit within twelve weeks from the date of appearance. Thereafter, the High Court is directed to proceed as per law. All the respondents are at liberty to file additional affidavits before the High Court. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the High Court for reconsideration in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. We may hasten to add that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.” 7. Thereafter, respondent no. 8 the State of Madhya Pradesh has filed a detailed counter affidavit. The matter is remitted back to the High Court for reconsideration in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. We may hasten to add that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.” 7. Thereafter, respondent no. 8 the State of Madhya Pradesh has filed a detailed counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh, the case sought to be set up, inter-alia, is as follows: A Covenant dated 07.10.1948 was entered into, which was published in Gazette on 30.10.1948. Article VI of this Covenant goes to show that all the assets of the Covenanting State shall vest in the United State of Madhya Bharat. Reference is made to Article XII of the Covenant to show that the Ruler of each State was entitled to ownership of certain properties enlisted therein in the appendix to the Covenant. Maharaja Holkar gave a list of properties, which were his private properties. He was informed that his claim was finally settled on the basis of the enclosure to the letter dated 06th May, 1949. It is stated that on a bare perusal of the attached enclosure goes to show that the claim of the Maharaja Yashwant Rao Holkar with respect to the Khasgi property was accepted and the income from the Khasgi property was treated to have been lapsed for all times to the Madhya Pradesh Government. In lieu thereof, the Madhya Bharat Government was to set aside a sum of Rs. 2,91,952/- from its revenue in perpetuity being the amount provided in the Holkar State budget. After the statement of claim of Maharaja Yashwant Rao Holkar, letter dated 07.05.1949 was issued by way of which his private properties, were finally approved and accepted as private properties. There is reference to Trust Deed dated 10.04.1950 executed by Maharaja in favour of his daughter Princess Usha Raje whereby his private properties were given to her. It is stated that Part-B of the original Trust Deed dated 27.06.1962 mentions that the properties i.e. the Temples, Houses, Dharamshalas, Ghats etc. were the properties, which were held by the erstwhile “Holkar State” and not the private properties of respondent no. 9 the Trust. It is stated that Part-B of the original Trust Deed dated 27.06.1962 mentions that the properties i.e. the Temples, Houses, Dharamshalas, Ghats etc. were the properties, which were held by the erstwhile “Holkar State” and not the private properties of respondent no. 9 the Trust. There is reference to a supplementary Trust Deed (which is referred by the petitioner also) and it is alleged that the supplementary Trust Deed dated 08.07.1962 was altogether groundless and it is a document of nullity in the eye of law. It is the case of the State of Madhya Pradesh too that the Trust, by no means, ever had a power to alienate the properties as the properties of the erstwhile Holkar State were devolved with the State of Madhya Bharat by the Covenants. An enquiry was conducted by the Principal Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh and the enquiry report has been produced. It is further stated that the State of Madhya Pradesh has taken positive steps to ensure that rest of the properties and charities of the respondent-Trust are not eliminated by alienation or misused in any way. In order to ensure the same, various Collectors and responsible government servants as Conservators of properties of Holkar Estate have been appointed. It is stated in counter further that the State of Madhya Pradesh has ensured that the said conservators are guarding the said properties of Holkar Estate vested with Government without any lenience. Instructions have been produced in this regard. The report made by the Conservators is also produced. Thereafter, in the counter affidavit of respondent no. 8 reference is made to two writ petitions, which were filed by the ninth respondent-Trust, namely, Writ Petition No. 5372 of 2010 and Writ Petition No. 11618 of 2012 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The latter writ petition was filed against the order passed by the Collector, Indore, wherein the Collector had found that the title of the properties vested in the State Government. It is pointed out that the learned Single Judge found that the Collector, Indore, the Registrar of Public Trusts, Indore and the State Government cannot and should not undertake the task of management of the Khasgi Endowments on account of its substantially extra-territorial nature and the large number, age and condition of the Khasgi Endowments. It was further held that the Khasgi Trust-respondent no. It was further held that the Khasgi Trust-respondent no. 9 should continue to manage the Khasgi Endowments subject to the directions contained in that order. It was requested to the legislatures of Union and State to legislate an Act governing the Trust. It was further directed that earlier transactions of transfer by the Trust, which had been supported by the proceedings of the trustees shall not be reopened. It is also stated out that writ appeals were filed against Single Judge judgments and the Division Bench was pleased to stay the directions issued by the learned Single Judge; it was also directed that the orders impugned in the writ petition to remain in abeyance and status quo was directed to be maintained regarding the orders impugned in the writ petition. 8. We have heard Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 105 of 2012. We also heard Mr. A.S. Rawat, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Charanjeet Kaur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Trust and some of the Trustees, who have been made party. We also heard Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Pratul Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the twelfth respondent i.e. the purchasers. Besides this, we also heard Mr. M.C. Pande, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Brief Holder appearing on behalf of the State of Uttarakhand. Finally, we heard Mr. A. Rajeshwar Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 8/State of Madhya Pradesh. 9. In fact, the counter affidavit on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh though filed on 11.05.2018, the parties were agreeable for the matter being heard today and on 23.05.2018, we directed the matter to be listed today. 10. Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 105 of 2012 would, after referring to the facts, as stated in the writ petition, point out that the property in question is a public property. He would submit that the Covenant cannot be bypassed. He would further submit that the original Trust Deed of 27.06.1962 could not have been amended by the supplementary Trust Deed dated 08.03.1972. (Be it noted that by the supplementary Trust Deed the right of sale with the Trust was declared to have been existed and continue to exist). He would submit that the Covenant cannot be bypassed. He would further submit that the original Trust Deed of 27.06.1962 could not have been amended by the supplementary Trust Deed dated 08.03.1972. (Be it noted that by the supplementary Trust Deed the right of sale with the Trust was declared to have been existed and continue to exist). He would, no doubt, further submit that the Trust is clearly a private Trust but he would complain that there is public right to worship in a temple located in the disputed property. He would even complain that this property/temple has been demolished and at present there is a hotel (It be noted that it is not a case pleaded as such). The supplementary Trust Deed cannot go against the terms of the Covenant dated 27.06.1962. His case would be that the property in question belongs to the State of Madhya Pradesh. He would specifically contend that the petitioner had no knowledge of the Civil Suit filed by respondent no. 12 (the purchaser). He would reiterate that the petitioner had no personal interest; the petitioner has only religious interest and he would submit that this is a case where the Court should pass orders for the protection of the public property. 11. On the other hand Mr. A.S. Rawat, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Trust would point out that this Court should not interfere in the matter according to him as a matter of fact, it’s not a public interest litigation. This is, apparently, on the basis that, according to him, the property belongs to the Trust. He would submit that actually there is a dispute between the ninth respondent-Trust and the State of Madhya Pradesh and there was no locus for the petitioner in the matter, who has no concern over the matter. He also supported the action of sale of trust property by its Resolution dated 05.06.2008. 12. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the twelfth respondent would also refer us to the facts, as stated in the counter affidavit, and would refer to the fact that there is a suit already filed by him, which is pending consideration. 12. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the twelfth respondent would also refer us to the facts, as stated in the counter affidavit, and would refer to the fact that there is a suit already filed by him, which is pending consideration. He would also submit that there is no temple on the site in question and no temple was ever demolished as alleged and no case is made out and he would pray for cost also. He would further submit that it may not be proper for this Court to interfere, when the matter is pending before the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and also by way of regular civil suit for permanent injunction against petitioner, if at all petitioner intends to maintain public interest, he ought to contest the two pending proceedings rather than filing the present PIL thereby multiplying the proceedings for same cause of action. 13. At this juncture, we must also notice that this Court, on the basis of a letter, which was addressed to Hon’ble the Chief Justice, also took suo motu notice and initially passed an order directing that the matter relating to the alienations (it be noted that the allegation is that more than one properties were alienated, which included the property in question) be referred to the C.B.I. On an application for recall filed by the twelfth respondent in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 105 of 2012 (purchaser of one of the items of the properties alleged in the said suo motu case), the said order came to be recalled. Essentially, the relief, which was sought in the PIL based on suo motu notice, would appear to be for C.B.I. enquiry based on the inquiry report dated 24.05.2012. 14. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, admittedly, the property belongs to the State of Madhya Pradesh. It is alleged to be a public property. He would state that there was a temple. He would contend that he has no interest except that he is a Hindu and he has no personal interest; wants to protect the right of public to worship in the temple situated on the property in question, alleging to be a temple, which was opened for worship to the public at large. 15. He would contend that he has no interest except that he is a Hindu and he has no personal interest; wants to protect the right of public to worship in the temple situated on the property in question, alleging to be a temple, which was opened for worship to the public at large. 15. Per contra, there is a case for the twelfth respondent the purchaser by sale deed dated 02.09.2009, which has filed the counter affidavit, that the property was legally alienated by the Trustees being supported by a Resolution dated 05.06.2008 and he was a bona-fide purchaser by a registered un-assailed sale deed, and more importantly, it has a case that the disputed property did not belong to the State of Madhya Pradesh. The case of the Trust itself is that dispute is between the Trust and the State of Madhya Pradesh, based on Covenants dated 12.04.1948, 07.05.1949 and Trust Deed dated 27.06.1962 and Supplementary Deed dated 08.03.1972. 16. The controversial and debated issues between the parties, which are still unresolved are, whether the property in this case is a Trust property? or whether the property belongs to the State of Madhya Pradesh? are all questions of disputed facts entailing detail scrutiny of oral and documentary evidences. There is a case for the petitioner that the supplementary Trust Deed dated 08.03.1972 is invalid. The State of Madhya Pradesh would also take that identical stand. There is no challenge to either the Sale Deeds, which have been executed before competent Civil Court, though the period of limitation for giving challenge to it would also be an issue to be considered. There is no doubt also about the supplementary Trust Deed that it is of the year 1972, which too has not been challenged. Further we have also noticed that even, according to the learned counsel for the State of Madhya Pradesh, the matter was pending before the Indore Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh by way of writ appeal. We must also bear in mind the stand of the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of Uttarakhand that the dispute is one, which is private in nature and the report of the Commissioner was ex-parte. 17. We must also bear in mind the stand of the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of Uttarakhand that the dispute is one, which is private in nature and the report of the Commissioner was ex-parte. 17. Public Interest Litigation, which had its origins in the late 1970s, evolved on the basis of the need to expand the locus standi so that any public spirited person could take up matters of genuine public interest, which could have otherwise remained dormant, in absence of a genuine person putting the same before the Court. In particular it aimed that any person could be allowed to have access to the Court on behalf of the public or a section of the public thereof, particularly, for ventilating the grievances relating to their being deprived of fundamental rights and other legal rights, which otherwise in absence of forum of PIL would escape judicial notice of ventilating public cause. In fact meant for the poor and the downtrodden; the prisoners languishing in jails; workers not being paid minimum wages; and similar such issues occupied the attention of the Courts initially. Over a period of time, however, public interest litigation has come to much misuse at the hands of litigants, who were and are not before the Court to ventilate any genuine public interest but for advancing or promoting private interest. The Court’s time, particularly in the times of docket explosion, is precious. The litigants wait in queue to have their cases taken up. Therefore, any attempt to pollute the pure stream of justice by persons, who knowing the fact, that they have no genuine public interest at heart, cannot be allowed to have access to Courts. 18. In this case, the first relief, which is sought by the petitioner, is for C.B.I. enquiry. C.B.I. respondent no. 6 has filed a counter affidavit substantially taking the stand that this is not a fit case for the matter to be entrusted to it. Paragraph no. 15 of the counter affidavit of the C.B.I. reads as follows: “15. That the contents of paragraph Nos. 26, 27 and 28 of the petitioner are opposed. It is submitted that it is a matter of civil nature in which properties of Trust are involved. These properties are situated at Kushaghat, in District Haridwar Uttarakhand. Paragraph no. 15 of the counter affidavit of the C.B.I. reads as follows: “15. That the contents of paragraph Nos. 26, 27 and 28 of the petitioner are opposed. It is submitted that it is a matter of civil nature in which properties of Trust are involved. These properties are situated at Kushaghat, in District Haridwar Uttarakhand. State government of Madhya Pradesh, Trustees of Khasgidevi Ahilyabai Holkar Charitable Trust, 7 Manik Bagh, Indore (M.P.) and other private persons are involved in this matter. It is submitted that in this matter state government may take suitable steps. CBI generally takes up the cases where involvement of Central Government Employees is prima facie found. In this matter, it appears that there is no involvement of any employee of Central Government. The grounds No. A to R mentioned in the Writ Petition are not concerned with the respondent No. 6 i.e. CBI, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.” 19. We fail to understand how and on what basis the petitioner can seek a C.B.I. enquiry and what right sustainable in the eyes of law he has to enforce for CBI enquiry. As far as the enquiry, which is relied on is concerned, it is stated by the learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand as also by Mr. A.S. Rawat, learned senior counsel for the Trust that it is an ex-parte enquiry without notice and without soliciting participation of any affected persons. It is also the case of the respondents (though we notice that it is not produced before the Court) that a different view had been taken at the level of the Government, which run contrary to report sought to be enforced by virtue of present PIL by the petitioner. Even if it is on the basis of the enquiry report dated 24.05.2012, which is relied on, we fail to understand how the petitioner could come before the Court to enforce the same, particularly having regard to the fact that the matter is involving scrutiny of fact and evidence, which is highly disputed and, in fact, engaging also, in this case, the attention of High Court of Madhya Pradesh. 20. We also notice that there is a definite case for the twelfth respondent that a suit for permanent injunction by him was filed against the petitioner. 20. We also notice that there is a definite case for the twelfth respondent that a suit for permanent injunction by him was filed against the petitioner. It is, in fact, a definite case of the twelfth respondent also that the petitioner wanted to grab the property in dispute by hook and crook. It is significant to notice that the petitioner has not sought any time to file rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit of the State of Madhya Pradesh, and has not filed rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit of respondent no. 12 though the counter affidavit was filed by respondent no. 12 on 24.06.2013. In fact, the learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to Article 363 of the Constitution of India and a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed on the said Article. It could be said that even the decision of this Court, in the facts of this case, may be barred by Article 363 of the Constitution of India, but we do not wish to go into the said aspect as such, having regard to the view we take i.e. the writ petition was misconceived; the writ petition by way of PIL was not maintainable, having regard to the facts of this case, as we have set out. We are of the view that not only the writ petition should be dismissed, but it should be dismissed with cost. 21. Accordingly, we dismiss the writ petition with cost quantified at Rs. 15,000/- to be paid by the petitioner within a period of one month to the Uttarakhand High Court Advocates Welfare Fund. 22. As far as connected Writ Petition (PIL) No. 163 of 2013, which was generated suo motu by this Court on the basis of a letter, therein also, apparently, entails scrutiny of identical set of facts and allegations are regarding the transactions incorporated in by the Trust, namely, Sale Deeds, which were executed, which include the name, which is the subject matter of Writ Petition (PIL) No. 105 of 2012. We have already noted the facts, which included the pendency of the Writ Appeal before the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. We would think that no orders are called for in the said writ petition and we close the said Writ Petition (PIL) No. 163 of 2013.