1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9222/2011 Decided on:16.06.2026 Jeet Ram Sharma …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P and others ..Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashwani Pathak, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1, 2 & 6. Mr. Anil Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr. Digvijay Singh Bisht, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sparsh Bhushan, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate, vice Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate, for respondent No.7. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge This writ petition was instituted on 20.10.2011 for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “(i). Issue a writ of certiorari to quash Annexure P-8, i.e. planning permissions accorded to respondent Nos. 4 & 5. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 (ii). Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to take appropriate necessary action available under the Town & Country Planning Act, post cancellation of planning permissions Annexure P-8. (iii). Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to decide the pending application for regularization of construction submitted by the present petitioner on 28.12.2006/02.01.2007 and further to grant final approval/sanction qua the construction in question raised by the present petitioner. (iv). Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to ensure that electricity and water connections are not granted contrary to the provisions of Section 83-A of the Town & Country Planning Act. (v). Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to review all cases of constructions raised in the vicinity of the present petitioners construction/building wherein electricity and water connections have been granted contrary to the provisions of Section 83-A of the Town & Country Planning Act, and to ensure that the same are in consonance with the permissible building norms. (vi). Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.5 to place on record the planning permission accorded in his favour.” 2. Following order was passed in this matter on 23.11.2021:- “This Court on 21st September, 2021, passed two fold directions. The first direction was requiring respondent No. 3 to consider and decide the pending application of the petitioner in view of prayer clause No. 3 of the writ petition. The petitioner had filed an application before respondent No. 3 for compounding the deviations. Respondent No. 3, by order dated 28th September, 3 2021, has rejected the said application of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has filed CMP No. 13583 of 2021, contending that the application of the petitioner has not been decided in terms of the relevant rules. The learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 prays for time to file reply. 3. The other part of order dated 21st September, 2021, was requiring respondents No. 2 & 7 to file a report in this Court with regard to construction/deviation/violation of the buildings within the Municipal limits of Shimla. In the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the parties have pointed out that the dispute in the present case is between the petitioner and private respondents No. 4 & 5 and allegations and counter-allegations have been made with regard to deviation/violation of the aforesaid building plan/bye-laws. The land/property of these three parties is falling under the Special Area Development Authority Ghanahatti, Shimla-II and not within the Municipal limits of Shimla. 4. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to modify the aforesaid order since the property/building in question is not located within the Municipal area of Shimla, but falls under the Special Area Development Authority Ghanahatti, Shimla-II and thus, the general direction for submitting the report with regard to construction/deviation/violation of the buildings within the Municipal limits of Shimla, in the present case, need not be acted upon. Respondent No. 3 shall file a complete report with regard to the deviation/violation in the construction made by the petitioner as well as respondents No. 4 & 5 in excess of the permissible limits and/or contrary to the building bye-laws applicable to the area in question, after carrying out a proper survey in their presence. 5. Matter to come up on 16th December, 2021. Copy dasti.” 4 3. Pursuant thereto, status report was filed on 30.04.2022 on behalf of respondent No.3 the Chairman, Special Area Development Authority (SADA), Ghanahatti - cum- Deputy Commissioner, Shimla. In terms of the status report, joint site inspection was conducted on 02.12.2021 by the Planning Officer SADA, Ghanahatti alongwith concerned Junior Engineer in presence of petitioner and respondents No. 4 & 5. The factual position of construction carried out at site with regard to the planning permission accorded to the petitioner as well as to respondents No. 4 & 5 was found in contravention to the approved plan. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 4 & 5 dispute the observations made in the status report against these respondents. Be that as it may, the status report has given case wise detail of petitioner as also respondents No. 4 & 5. In view of the status report, there does not seem to be any necessity to continue this writ petition any further. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with direction to respondent No.3/Competent Authority to take appropriate action in accordance with law against the petitioner and respondents No. 4 & 5 keeping in view the fact finding inspection report. While carrying out the proceedings against the above 5 incumbents, procedure in accordance with law be followed. All stakeholders be associated and be given due opportunity as per law for placing their version before the Competent Authority. Parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before respondent No.3 on 09.07.2026. Considering the fact that this writ petition was instituted in the year 2011, respondent No.3/ Competent Authority is directed to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua June 16, 2026 Judge yogesh