2025:HHC:14529 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7625 of 2025 Decided on: 19.05.2025 M/s Kin Hydro Power Developers Private Limited … 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.Kulbhushan Khajuria, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for the respondents-State. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “i) For directing the Respondent State authorities to ensure that the work of M/s Kin Hydro Power Project Sailan Kinaur at the project sites of the Petitioner is not stalled due to illegal actions of the private respondents. ii) That the Superintendent of Policy may kindly be directed to provide adequate Policy Assistant to the petitioner company for ensuring the smooth construction of the project.” 2. When the matter was heard on the previous dates, this Court was of the considered view that no mandamus in the form of a restraint order could be passed by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against private individuals more than 45 in number. These individuals were not the employee of the petitioner and as the issues raised in the petition were such which involved disputed questions of fact, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:14529 therefore, the petitioner was advised to have recourse to the Civil Court. 3. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner be allowed to withdraw this petition with liberty to approach the Civil Court, but with an observation that as the petitioner has already approached the concerned Superintendent of Police to provide security to the work site of the petitioner from the un-rulling elements, appropriate direction in this regard be issued. Learned counsel has referred to Annexure P-9, appended with the petition to substantiate the factum of the petitioner having approached the Superintendent of Police. 4. In light of the prayer so made by learned counsel for the petitioner, without making any observation on the merits of the case, this petition is petition is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty, as prayed for, but with the observation that the Superintendent of Police concerned may take into consideration the threat perception to the work site of the petitioner and in case he deems it necessary, then protection be provided to the premises of the petitioner, but at the expense of the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 19, 2025 (Rishi)