JUDGMENT 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:- ' 1. That, the respondent be directed to reopen the lock and also open the sealed the said premises of said marriage vatika till the final disposal of this petition. Petitioners be allowed to solemnize the marriage at the said vatika. 2. That, the cost of the litigation may also be awarded. 3. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted to the petitioner. " 2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the marriage of the son of the petitioners is fixed for 16/1/2020 and accordingly, they have booked the marriage garden for the marriage ceremony of their son and have paid the advance rent to the respondent no.5, who is the owner of Mohan Vatika. It is submitted that on 6/1/2020 at about 9:30 PM the marriage garden Mohan Vatika has been seized by putting lock by the respondents and accordingly, the owner of the marriage garden has submitted an application before the respondent no.3 for opening the lock of the said premises, but the same has not been decided so far and since the petitioners would be one of the sufferers, therefore, the present petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to reopen the lock and also open the sealed premises of Mohan Vatika marriage garden, however, till disposal of this petition, all the petitioners be allowed to solemnize the marriage in the said marriage garden. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. It appears that a writ petition is pending before the Division Bench of this Court in which running of marriage garden contrary to the provisions of law has been challenged. It appears that the respondents have sealed the marriage garden on the ground that the same is being run contrary to the provisions of law. The petitioner has not come up with complete facts. On the contrary he has merely stated that unauthorizedly the marriage garden has been locked and the application filed by the owner of the marriage garden for reopening of the marriage garden has not been decided, as a result of which, the petitioner would suffer. The petitioner has not come up with complete facts. On the contrary he has merely stated that unauthorizedly the marriage garden has been locked and the application filed by the owner of the marriage garden for reopening of the marriage garden has not been decided, as a result of which, the petitioner would suffer. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition. If a marriage garden is being run contrary to the provisions of law, then no direction can be given to the respondents to open the marriage garden, so that the petitioners can perform the marriage of their son. If the petitioners are of the view that they would suffer inconvenience because of locking of marriage garden, then they have a civil right against the owner of the marriage garden, who was running the marriage garden contrary to the provisions of law. For enforcement of a private contract between the petitioners as well as the owner of the marriage garden, this Court cannot direct the authorities to open the marriage garden and the petitioners have a remedy of seeking compensation from respondent no.5. Since the petitioners have no locus standi to file this petition and further this petition has been filed for specific performance of contract between the petitioners and respondent no.5 as well as complete facts have not been pleaded in the present petition and further the subject matter of running of marriage garden contrary to the provisions of law is already subjudice before the Division Bench of this Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that this petition is misconceived. It is, accordingly, dismissed.