2025:HHC:29322 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2699 of 2019 Decided on: 29.08.2025 Mohan Lal Sood … Petitioner Versus Union of India & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. Rajender Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India, with Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That writ of certiorari may kindly be issued, quashing the impugned notice dated 25.09.2019 (Annexure P-10). (ii) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents not to demolish the structure of the petitioner and further to compound the structure of the petitioner as has been done in the cases of other residents of the same place.” 2. The respondents have initiated action against the petitioner for un-authorized construction and in light of the fact that despite due notices the un-authorized construction was not removed by the petitioner, the petitioner was called upon to remove the same within a time bound period and feeling aggrieved, the petitioner 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:29322 approached this Court on the ground that whereas the cases of similarly situated persons have been compounded, the petitioner has been discriminated. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is a clear case of discrimination. 3. Mr. Balram Sharma, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, by referring to the reply has apprised the Court that the petitioner has been proceeded strictly in accordance with law and no case for compounding of un-authorized construction is made out. He further submitted that the action has been taken against the petitioner in terms of the directions of this Court in RSA No.437 of 2018. 4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and as it is not in dispute that certain un-authorized constructions have been compounded by the Authority concerned, this petition is disposed of without any observation on merit, but with the direction that in case the petitioner approaches the Authority concerned by way of appropriate representation on or before 15.09.2025, for compounding of the un-authorized construction, then let the said representation be decided by the Authority in accordance with law by following the principles of natural justice within a reasonable time. Till the representation is decided by the Authority concerned, no coercive action be taken against the petitioner in terms of the impugned order. However, it is clarified that if representation is not filed by the petitioner on or before 15.09.2025, then this order will 3 2025:HHC:29322 loose its efficacy and the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner as per law in accordance with the Policy and Building Bylaws that govern the field. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 29, 2025 (Rishi)