A Memorandum of Settlement has no legal effect and cannot be implemented without appropriate legislation.

( 1 ) THE present writ petition is one of the glaring examples as to how each and every problem of life is brought to the Court to find its solution. The writ petitioners have prayed, inter alia, for issuing a writ of mandamus calling upon the respondents and each one of them and their agents to show cause as to why the respondents should not be directed to act in accordance with law and also a writ of certiorari calling upon respondents to certify and to transmit all the records and/or proceedings and papers relating to the proposed agreement of "darjeeling Gurkha Hill Council" to this Court so that the members of the public may get information of the said proposed agreement and for an interim order directing the respondents and other officers to take immediate steps for not to use the word "gurkha" in the proposed agreement of Darjeeling Hill Council and to take such other necessary steps which would be for the interest of the public at large.

( 2 ) IT is stated in the writ petition that the petitioners not for their individual interests, but for the sake of the country at large have filed the present writ petition by way of a public interest litigation, stating that the respondents 1 and 2, being Union of India and the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, and the respondents 3 and 4 being the Government of West Bengal and its Secretary, Home Department, are taking steps contrary to and inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitution of India and/or the acts caused to have been done by the said respondents which would result in spreading communal ill-feeling and the word specially used in the proposed agreement, being 'gorkha' should be avoided otherwise by conceding to such demand, the steps have been taken in the way of dividing the country and the entire interest of the State is in jeopardy. These facts have been elaborated by making various averments by giving examples of Jharkhand activities and other political activities within the State. It is also stated that by conceding to the demand of a section of people, who have no locus standi to enter into such agreement and/or accord, the spirit of the Constitution of India is being violated and the people at large have been kept in the dark to know as to the whereabouts of the proposed agreement and by suppressing all facts and by keeping in darkness such steps have been taken prejudicing the interest of the people of the State and in particular the interest of a large section of the people is affected.

( 3 ) UPON notice to the respondents the present writ petition is being moved.

( 4 ) MR. Somnath Chatterjee, learned counsel is appearing for the respondents 3 and 4 and Mr. Sushanta Kumar Kundu, learned Advocate is appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.

( 5 ) IN course of hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties argued at length and while going through the pleadings, it appears that at the outset a copy of the impugned memorandum of settlement has been produced before this Court. Mr. Kanak Kumar Chatterjee, learned Advocate for the petitioner has also got an opportunity to go through the said memorandum of settlement. Mr. K. K. Chatterjee appearing for the petitioner has strongly argued that a prima facie case has been made out by the petitioner for issuance of a rule and to pass an interim order in terms of prayer (c) of the writ petition. He has also submitted that if already the agreement has been signed, this Court should pass an appropriate order restraining the respondents from taking any step to implement the said memorandum of settlement and/or the agreement and/or the accord in the proper perspective. In elaborating his submission, he has submitted that the petitioner has got locus standi to maintain this application and the writ petitioner has got locus standi to maintain this application and this writ petition should be considered as a public interest litigation, and the Court's powers are wide enough to investigate the ma