2025:HHC:11477 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7023 of 2025 Decided on: 30.04.2025 Pradeep Kumar Sood … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. Heena Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for the respondents-State. Ms.Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Sugandh Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “a) Writ of certiorari may kindly be passed thereby quashing and setting aside office order No. SDK-SADA (Un.Auth.)/2025-110 dated 04.04.2025 (Annexure P-13) whereby permanent NOC for providing basic and essential amenities of electricity, water and sewerage to the premises of the petitioner has been withdrawn by the respondent No.2. b) Writ of mandamus may kindly be issued against the respondents to restore the basic and essential amenities 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:11477 of electricity, water and sewerage to the premises of the petitioner i.e. top/fourth floor of the building, partly constructed without roof upon a parcel of land and building measuring 00-03-02 hectares in Khewat/Khatauni No.15/32, khasra No.157/02, situated at Up-Mohal Reckong Peo, Tehsil Kalpa, District Kinnour, H.P. c) Writ of mandamus may kindly be issued against the respondent No.2 to consider the case of the petitioner vide annexure P-12 in consonance with the latest H.P. Town and Country Planning Rules.” 2. A perusal of the documents appended with the petition demonstrates that the same issue has been raised by the petitioner by way of a Civil Suit which is pending adjudication before the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Kinnaur at Reckong Peo, H.P. 3. In the light of this fact, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner cannot invoke parallel jurisdiction of the Civil Court as well as the High Court, because the issue that is now being raised by the petitioner herein can very easily be raised by the petitioner before the Civil Court. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to withdraw this petition, with liberty to the petitioner that if so advised, he may file an appropriate application 3 2025:HHC:11477 with regard to the issue raised in this writ petition before the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Kinnaur at Reckonk Peo, H.P. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge April 30, 2025 (Rishi)