2025:HHC:1099-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2094 of 2017 Date of Decision: 06.01.2025 _______________________________________________________ Ramesh Kumar & another …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent- State. Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.7. Mr. N.K. Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aman Sood, Advocate, for respondent No.12. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for following main reliefs:- “(i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to ensure that the private respondents restores the damaged road to its original shape by demolishing the illegal/unauthorized structure and to initiate appropriate necessary legal action under Civil, Criminal, Revenue Law against the private respondent; 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:1099-DB (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to initiate appropriate necessary disciplinary, criminal action against erring officials namely, SDM, Tehsildar, SHO who have not initiated appropriate necessary action against the private respondent despite being made aware of the same. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioners as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Nitin Thakur, learned counsel representing the petitioners, is that respondent No.12, while raising unauthorized construction adjacent to National Highway, caused damage to link road starting from Kandaghat Bazaar to PWD Guest House. 3. Pursuant to the notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents have filed the reply, perusal whereof, reveals that prior to filing the petition at hand, similar issue was raised in CWP No.3017 of 2015, titled Ramesh Kumar and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, wherein Principal Division Bench of this Court having taken note of unauthorized construction as well as damage caused to the road, as detailed hereinabove, directed the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh to conduct an inquiry and pinpoint the officers, who failed to initiate action against respondent No.12. 4. Pursuant to aforesaid direction issued by Principal Division Bench of this Court, Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh conducted inquiry (Annexure P-14), wherein 3 2025:HHC:1099-DB direction came to be issued to private respondent to restore the road allegedly damaged by him, while carrying out unauthorized construction at his own cost. During inquiry, it also came to be pointed out that one person namely, Vijay Chauhan, who at relevant time was working as Assistant Engineer, PWD, Kandaghat, failed to discharge his duties properly, as a result thereof, private respondent succeeded in raising unauthorized construction. Most importantly, in afore inquiry it also came to be reported that during pendency of cases as well as inquiry, necessary permissions by SADA as well as other authorities were granted in favour of the private respondent. 5. Having perused the report submitted by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, as detailed hereinabove, this Court finds that the reliefs prayed for in the instant proceedings already stands granted to the petitioners. It is not in dispute, rather stand admitted that road allegedly damaged on account of unauthorized construction at the behest of private respondent stands repaired and at present same is in use. Similarly, it also emerges from the pleadings adduced on record by the respondents that appropriate action in accordance with law stands initiated against the erring officials. 6. Pursuant to the specific direction issued by this Court, respondent No.7- Nagar Panchayat, Kandaghat has filed reply, 4 2025:HHC:1099-DB wherein in paras No.10 and 11 afore respondent has stated as under:- 10&11. That the contents of these para are admitted to the extent of record. It is submitted that building plan which is under consideration with the replying respondent and same would be finalized only after getting the all necessary documents, NOC and other required papers for the approval even the clarification would be seek from the higher authorities in case it is required. Thus, the contention of the petitioner needs to be rejected. Further, the contents of this para regarding supplying of information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 are admitted to be correct. 7. It has been categorically mentioned in afore reply submitted by respondent No.7 that respondent No.12 has submitted the building plan, which is under consideration with the replying respondent and same would be finalized only after getting all necessary documents, NOC and other required papers for the approval. 8. Consequently, in view of the above, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the present petition and accordingly same is disposed of. Needless to say, till the time necessary permission as required under law is not obtained by the private respondent, he shall not be permitted to carry out construction on the spot. Since prayer made on behalf of the private respondent with regard to sanction of map as well as carrying out other construction activities is pending consideration before the respondents for quite long, this Court hopes 5 2025:HHC:1099-DB and trusts that needful shall be done expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge January 06, 2025 (shankar)