( 2025:HHC:28020 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 2485 of 2018 Decided on: 14th August, 2025 ____________________________________________________ Dharam Sen and others ....Petitioners Versus State of H.P and others …Respondents _____________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr.Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 5. Mr. Arjun Lall and Mr.Vidur Kapur, Advocates, for respondent No.6. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) The present petition seeks various directions against the respondents, including the State and respondent No.6, a partnership concern. In sum and substance, the reliefs which are claimed in the Writ petition, are as under:- “i That respondents may very kindly be directed to assess the loss and damage caused to the Suru Village towards their crops, houses, water resources 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 and roads on account of and due to outlet, construction of penstock and other constructions, by further directing to assess the losses caused due to the construction of road by the project and then to pay the same to the residents of the area as per their entitlement. ii. That Authorities may very kindly be directed to release the remaining 30% payment as agreed vide Annexure P-5 dated 6th August, 2011 in favour of the effected persons. iii. That respondents may very kindly be directed to recover the LADA funds spent by the Project Authorities on road from Kuthroo to Power House, by further directing the Authorities to spend that amount for construction of road up till Suru Village and other required roads. iv. That directions may very kindly be issued to the respondents to provide employment to the project effected villagers as agreed and in the alternative to provide suitable compensation to such project effected villagers. v. That respondents may very kindly be directed to reinstall the ropeway from Village Badhal to Village Suru which has been damaged after the same was taken over by the Project Authorities for using the same for construction of project. vi. That respondents may very kindly be directed to withdraw all the false cases registered against the villagers after the project was taken over by the respondent No.6 in the interest of law and justice.” 3 2. From the averments made in the Writ petition, it appears that the petitioners, who are residents of Village Suru, Tehsil, Rampur, District Shimla, have been affected by 24 MW Hydro Electric Project, which was initially to be put in place by M/s Kut Energy Private Limited, as per implementation agreement dated 26.05.2008 (Annexure P-1). 3. Respondent No.6 is stated to be the purchaser of the said Hydro Electric Project from Punjab National Bank, in an open auction conducted on 06.10.2017 under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the possession was handed over to it on 23.05.2018, which would be clear from communication dated 05.06.2018 (Annexure P-6), which is by respondent No.6 itself. A perusal of the same also would go on to show that the undertaking of liabilities as required as per Hydro Electric Policy of H.P as assigned to original allottee was also acceptable to the said respondent. The undertaking by way of affidavit of the authorized representative is also on record, in pursuance of the said communication. 4. In such circumstances, reliance has been placed upon the other agreements and written assurances, given by the Project authorities for giving jobs and benefits, which had to 4 accrue from the implementation agreement. 5. In the reply filed by respondents No.1,4 and 5, facts regarding the lodging of FIR No.53 of 2018 dated 02.06.2018; FIR Nos.59 of 2018 dated 21.06.2018; and FIR No. 70 of 2018 dated 24.07.2018 have been mentioned against the villagers. 6. In the reply filed by respondents No.2 and 3, a plea is taken that the petitioners had not brought to their knowledge that the project authorities have failed to pay compensation of crops, with respect to the land, which was damaged on account of construction of the road and that the amounts received was deposited before the LADA for the shelves provided by the concerned Gram Panchayat. The issue of the road blockage as such is also denied and that the road is being used by all the villagers. It was also submitted that there was a labour dispute as such, which was also stated to have been resolved, as per proceedings dated 08.06.2018 (Annexure R-1). A specific averment has been made that all due benefits have been extended to the local people and the matter of employment to local people is between the local people and project authorities. It is also submitted that the project authorities have constructed an over bridge to the link above the said road with the Suru Village 5 and a ropeway is also constructed from village Badhal to village Suru by the Public Works Department and taken over by the project authorities. It has also been denied that the local area fund was utilized for the construction of the road and the road as such is constructed by the project authorities upto the Power house as per private agreement entered inter se the parties. The necessary directions were also issued to the project authorities to reinstate the ropeway at the earliest and make it functional for the use of villagers of Suru village and that the work of ropeway is complete and made functional and the alternative path with proper over bridge has also been provided to reach the road and there is no need to use the path, which passes underneath the electric powers, which can endanger human life. 7. Respondent No.6, on the other hand, has also raised the issues regarding maintainability of the Writ petition qua it and that the petitions have been filed before the Civil Judge for payment of wages and the jurisdiction of Writ Court has also been questioned against the said respondent and non-joinder of the Himachal Kisan Sabha Panchayat Kut and Kut Gram Panchayat. It is pleaded that the said respondent is abiding by Clause 5.5.2 of the implementation agreement and no claim has been received 6 for compensation relating to crops. The construction of the road had taken place at the initial stage of the project in the year, 2011 and the previous company M/s Kut Energy had received some claims which were settled by the said company and no claim is pending against the said respondent. The concerned Gram Panchayat has not raised the issue of the distribution of the LADA funds. The denial of the usage of the road was also controverted. 8. From the said pleadings, apparently disputed questions as such are arising and also the maintainability of the petition against the private respondent and the writ petitioners may necessarily have to approach the Civil Court. However keeping in view the overall controversy as such, on account of the fact that the State would have also the responsibility as such regarding the implementation of the agreement being a public duty. The fact remains and the pleadings as such do not show that the petitioners had approached any of the authorities before approaching the Writ Court. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that it would not be appropriate for this Court to go into these disputed issues of facts and the responsibility of respondents regarding the agreement as such to the extent which is not being implemented. In our opinion, firstly it is the State to 7 take a call upon the said averments and pass a speaking order as such on the same. 9. Resultantly, we dispose of the present petition by directing that the petitioners are free to file a detailed representation giving latest position as to what has not been put in place as per any contract or the implementation agreement, for which the State would be in a better position to get it implemented to that limited extent, if not already in place, since, these are factual matrixs, which have to be confronted by the authorities firstly 10. Resultantly, the petitioners are given liberty to file a detailed representation within two weeks from today to the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla and the said Officer shall then take a call on the said issue by also associating the petitioners and authorized representative of respondent No.6 and take a decision on the same. It is also open to the said officer to associate the relevant Gram Panchayats, since the issues have also been raised regarding personal interest as such of the petitioners on account of earlier litigations including lodging of FIR which have been preferred by respondent No.6 and protection orders have also been issued by this Court and also the fact that FIRs were 8 also registered against some of the residents of the Village. It has also to be kept in mind whether there is any representative grouse as such which is also an aspect, which the authority has to examine and whether the petitioners have any such locus standi in their individual capacity to raise the issue on account of lack of resolution from the relevant Gram Panchayats. Thus respondent No.2 shall take a call within a period of two months on the said issues from the receipt of the representation. 11. In view of the above, the present petition stands disposed off alongwith pending applications, if any. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice 14th August, 2025 ( Ranjan Sharma ) (priti) Judge