Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2021 DAILYLAW 1075 (HP)

COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. STATE OF HP

CWPIL/15/2021 · 2026-08-13

Bipin Chander Negi, Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia

Public Interest Litigationbody2021

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPIL No.15 of 2021 a/w CWP No.2829 of 2016 Date of Decision : 13.08.2026 CWPIL No.15 of 2021 Court on its own motion …… Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others …… Respondents CWP No.2829 of 2016 Jawahar Lal Kaith …… Petitioner Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and Others …… Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 CWPIL No.15 of 2021 For the Petitioner : Court on its own motion. For the Respondents : Mr. Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocate General. CWP No.2829 of 2016 For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Verma, Advocate for Mr. V.D. Khidtta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocate General. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (oral) Letter dated 13.07.2026 addressed to the Advocate General has been placed on record, wherein, it has been submitted that the work of metalling and tarring in RD 32/0 to 40/0 on Narkanda Baggi Khadrala-Sungri-Rohru road has been completed on 29.06.2026. Necessary photographs have also been attached. 2. The Public Interest Litigation (CWPIL No.15 of 2021) has been registered on the complaint of one Arpit Sharma, whereas the other petition (CWP No.2829 of 2026) has been filed by one Jawahar Lal Kaith. The prayer in both the petitions is the same, i.e., the repair and maintenance of Ganasidhar to Sungri road. Accordingly, both these petitions were tagged together. 3. In the present petitions, consistent orders had been passed, as such, directing the maintenance of the road over a period of time. We notice that various stretches have been completed earlier and undertakings as such have also been given. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the needful has been done within the stipulated period of time and now both the petitions have become infructuous. 3 5. Accordingly, both the petitions are dismissed, as having become infructuous, so also, the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. ( G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice ( Bipin Chander Negi) August 13, 2026 (KS) Judge