IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.411 of 2025 Date of Decision: 07.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Ashwani Kumar …….Petitioner Versus Darbara Singh & Anr. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Kavita Kajal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Shivank Singh Panta, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No. 2-State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 clearly suggests that in terms of mandate contained in the judgment, alleged to have been violated, time table has been fixed without consulting RTO Una, as a result thereof, some confusion may occur at Una, from which area buses of the petitioners are to ply. 2. Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that since time table has been issued, the matter can be resolved by permitting the petitioner to make representation to RTO Una to take 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 up the matter with Secretary, RTA Jallandhar for adjustment of timing so that unnecessary confusion is avoided. 3. Consequently, in view of the above, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings and accordingly, the same are closed. Notices issued to the respondents are discharged. However to avoid further complication and multiplicity of litigation, this Court reserves liberty to the petitioner to make representation to RTO Una, praying therein to take up the matter with Secretary RTA Jallandhar for adjusting the timing of the buses. Needless to say, RTO Una shall take necessary action within one month. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 07, 2025 (Sunil)