HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 470 of 2025 (M/S) M/S Shree Shyam Industries ….......Petitioner Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others …..... Respondents Present : Mr. Anchit Khokher, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mahendra Singh Bisht, Standing Counsel for the State/respondent nos.1 and 4. Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for respondent nos.2 and 3. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:- “i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.1 to 3 hand over possession of site in question to the petitioner ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.1 to 8 to restrain local goons and their musclemen from interfering in effective operation of site in question by the petitioner iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.6 to 8 to provide adequate protection to the staff of petitioner at site in question. iv) Pass such further orders or directions which are just and proper in the facts of the case.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2 3. In the instant case, learned State counsel was required to get instructions. Under instructions, he would submit that the law and order problem is maintained and all rules are being followed in the matter. There is no issue, as such. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 would submit that, in fact, there is some dispute which is being created by some locals. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the tenders that were invited by the respondent no.2, the State Tourism Development Committee, Dehradun, for collection of entry fee from tourist at parking at Sahastradhara, Dehradun, the petitioner participated in it. A Memorandum Of Understanding (“MOU”) was also entered between the petitioner and the respondent no.2 on 28.04.2023, but the spot/site, at which, the collection is to be made, has yet not handed over to the petitioner and some local goons and their musclemen are interfering in effective operation of the site-in-question. 6. The petitioner has a commercial relationship with the respondent no.2. It is the case of the petitioner that a MOU has been executed between the petitioner and 3 the respondent no.2. If respondent no.2 is not fulfilling the part of his obligation under MOU, the petitioner may seek such remedy, as available to him under the MOU. This Court cannot deliver possession of any site. Even this Court cannot enter into the private dispute of the parties relating to an agreement. Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to interfere in the instant petition. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 7. The petition is dismissed in limine. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 05.03.2025 Sanjay