2025:HHC:19406 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 7623/2025 Decided on: 23.6.2025 Sarita Devi …..Petitioner Versus Union of India & ors. ….Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the Petitioner: Mr. Goverdhan Lal Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Virbahadur Verma, Central Government Counsel , for respondent No.1. Mr. Neeraj Sharma & Mr. Ishaan Kashyap, Advocates, for respondents No. 2 to 4. ____________________________________________________________ Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (oral) Reply on behalf of respondents No. 2 to 4 stands filed. 2 The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive relief: “(a) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of Notice dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure P-2) issued under Section 148 by Respondent No.2 being illegal and without jurisdiction as after the introduction of Notification dated 29.03.2022 (Annexure P-5), the proceedings under Section 148 could have only been initiated by Respondent No.4 and also for the reason that the proceedings in question have been 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 initiated in contravention to the provisions of Section 148A and are based upon presumptions and conjectures without considering the documents on the record.” 3. The subject matter of the challenge in this petition, whereby the legality, validity and propriety of impugned notice under Section 148, dated 28.3.2025 (Annexure P-2) is already under consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (c) Diary No. 17041/2024., case titled Union of India & Ors. Vs. Association of Technical Textiles Manufacturers and Processors & Anr. 4. Since the issue involved in this petition is already pending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, keeping in view the judicial discipline, we refrain ourselves from giving our opinion with respect to impugned notice under Section 148, dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure P-2), as assailed in this petition. We direct that the present petition shall be governed by the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the decision thereto, shall be binding on this case also. 5. The continuity of proceedings before the competent authority, in view of the pendency of the matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court is bound to lead to multiplicity of litigation. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to stay such 3 proceedings till the time issue is finally decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Ordered accordingly. 6. The petition is disposed of in above terms, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge (Sushil Kukreja) 23.6.2025 Judge (pankaj)