IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 1798 of 2019 a/w CWP No.2214 of 2018 Decided on 01st July 2025 CWP No.1798 of 2019 Munish Kumar …Petitioner Versus Union of India and others …Respondents _________________________________________________ CWP No.2214 of 2018 Shri Ghanshyam Garg …Petitioner Versus Defence Estate Officer and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner(s): Mr. P.S. Goverdhan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner, in CWP No.1798 of 2019. Mr. K.D. Sood, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Sanjeev Sood, Advocate, for the petitioner, in CWP No. 2214 of 2018. For the respondents: Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, CGC, for the respondent-State, in both the petitions. Ms. Chehak Khurana, Advocate, vice Mr. N.K. Bhalla, Advocate, for the Cantonment Board Kasauli, in CWP No.2214 of 2018. 2 Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) When these cases were taken up for consideration, learned Central Government Counsel submitted that in one of the writ petitions reply has not yet been filed by the respondents. 2. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has pointed out that alongwith these two writ petitions, another writ petition was preferred by this Court i.e. CWP No. 1800 of 2019, titled Sunil Kumar versus Union of India and others, in which, same issue was involved. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that said writ petition was disposed of by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 25.11.2019 and interest of justice would be served in case these petitions are also disposed of in terms of the said judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench with a slight modification that in Para-2 thereof Section 5(A) be mentioned instated of Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. 3. Accordingly, these petitions are disposed of by quashing the impugned notices issues to the petitioners under 3 Section 4 of the Act of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 by the respondents, but with liberty to the respondents to issue fresh notices in terms of the appropriate provisions of the Act and quashing of the notices earlier issued shall have no bearing on the issuance of fresh notices by the respondents. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 01, 2025 (Vinod)