2025:HHC:7939 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4490 of 2025 Decided on: 27.03.2025 Sh. Manjoor Akhtar & others … Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. Shubham Sood, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following relief:- “i) That a writ of certiorari or any any other appropriate writ order or directions may kindly be issued for quashing and setting aside all actions done by the Respondents in furtherance of order dated 20.02.2986 being a nulity, being barred by limitation and against the principles of natural justice.” 2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the relief clause as well as the averments made in the petition, all that this Court can observe is that the Writ Petition is completely misconceived. 3. In terms of the first prayer made in the petition, the petitioners have approached this Court, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorary or any other writs or directions for “quashing and 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:7939 setting aside all actions done by the respondents in furtherance of order dated 20.02.2986” (wrongly typed instead of 20.02.1986). On a query put to learned counsel for the petitioners, he informed the Court that the petitioners are not aggrieved by order dated 20.02.1986. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the respondents are acting contrary to order dated 20.02.1986. 4. This Court is of the considered view that as and when any action is taken by an Authority which prejudices a party, it is at that stage that cause of action accrues in favour of a party. The cause has to be in terms of an express act of the Authority which is conceivable and perceivable and assailable in the Court of Law. In this case, there is a prayer made by the petitioners to set aside all actions taken by the respondents in furtherance of order dated 20.02.1986, without appending the orders that might have been passed by the Authority, which are being termed by the petitioners to be the actions of the respondents. What are those actions, this Court does not knows. 5. Therefore, in the absence of there being a specific prayer for quashing of particular action of the respondents, no relief, as prayed for, can be granted to the petitioners and accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge March 27, 2025 (Rishi)