2025:HHC:14519 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8153 of 2025 Decided on: 19.05.2025 Sh. Ved Ram Thakur … 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 : Dr. Rajesh Kumar Parmar, 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. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents No.1 to 3 to take immediate and appropriate steps for restoration of the water supply to the Petitioner’s house at Jagatkhana, Brow, District Kullu. ii) Direct the Respondents 4-6 to ensure that private Respondent No.7 does not obstruct the Petitioner’s right to access water supply in the future. iii. Direct the Respondent No.6 to assist in the reconstruction of the water pipeline to the Petitioner’s house at the earliest. iv. Direct the respondents for taking action against responsible officers who in connivance with private respondent shifted the water chamber without notice.” 2. A perusal of the writ petition demonstrates that as per 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:14519 the petitioner, the water supply to his house which was there since last 40 years was unilaterally shifted in the month of June, 2023, that is to say that the water chamber from where the water connection was given to the petitioner was disturbed without any notice to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, this was at the behest of the private respondent who has constructed a house over the existing water pipeline of the petitioner. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having carefully perused the averments made in the petition, this Court is of the considered view that the dispute is primarily between the petitioner and the private respondent. On a query put to learned counsel for the petitioner, as to the water chamber was existing on whose land, though very clear answer was not given to the Court by learned counsel, but he candidly stated that the land was of the private respondent. 4. Taking into consideration the fact that it is primarily a civil dispute between two individual, this Court is not inclined to invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. At the stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that interest of justice would be served in case the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Executive Engineer concerned afresh for redressal of his grievance. He submits that in case the petitioner is still not satisfied, he will approach the 3 2025:HHC:14519 Civil Court for the redressal of his grievance including assailing the order that may be passed by the Executive Engineer concerned. 6. In the light of the said prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, without making a observation on the merits of this case, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Executive Engineer concerned afresh, if so advised and in case any such application is filed before the Executive Engineer, the same be decided after hearing the petitioner as well as the private respondent. It is again clarified that this Court has not made any observation on the merits of the case. The petitioner is further given liberty to approach the Civil Court in case he is not satisfied with the order that may be passed on the representation of the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 19, 2025 (Rishi)