IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.86 of 2024 Decided on: 14th August, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ram Lal Sharma …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Ambika Kotwal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Ms. Tanu Sharma, Legal Aid Counsel, for respondents No.6 to 8. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “i) That Respondent No.1 to 3 or concerned authority may kindly be directed to initiate appropriate enquiry in the complaints of the petitioner Annexure P-6 to P-9 and further appropriate action may kindly be ordered to be taken against the then BDO, Respondent No.5 to 8 and against the other concerned authorities who are involved in the scam of misappropriation of sanctioned funds and for mis-utilizing the said funds sanctioned in favour of respondent No.8 under Mukhyamantri Awas Yojna 2017-2018, who have done the irregularities while discharging their duties. 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes 2 ii) That the respondents No.1 to 3 may kindly be directed to decide the complaints of the petitioner annexure P-6 dated 03.07.2018, annexure P-7 dated 04.03.2022, annexure P-8 dated 02.02.2022 and annexure P-9 dated 23.09.2022, within time bund period. iii) That directions may kindly be issued to the respondent No.4 to initiate appropriate action against the respondent No.8 for procuring false IRDP certificate, who do not fall under IRDP category. iv) That recovery may ordered to be made of the sanctioned funds from the respondent No.8 and from the erring authorities, in view of the factum that the amount a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- sanctioned in favour of respondent No.8 has not been utilized for the purpose of construction of house as per the scheme, Himachal Pradesh Mukhyamantri Awas Yojna.” 2. After arguing for a while, learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law for the redressal of petitioner’s grievances raised in this writ petition. Learned counsel further submitted that the period spent in pursuing this writ petition be also excluded for the limitation purpose. Prayer is accepted. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty, as prayed for. The period spent in pursuing this litigation shall be excluded for limitation purpose. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua August 14, 2026 Judge Mukesh