IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.235/2021 Date of Decision: 10th July, 2025. Om Parkash .....Petitioner Versus M.C. Shimla …..Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Sood, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rahul, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). Present petition has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 20.07.2021, passed by the learned District Judge, Shimla, HP in Civil Misc. Appeal No.60-S/14 of 2019, whereby an order dated 03.09.2019, passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Shimla, wherein the latter has ordered the demolition of structure (telecom tower) and imposition of penalty on the service provider, has been affirmed. 2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2 3. A perusal of impugned order dated 03.08.2019, passed by the Municipal Commissioner, Shimla reflects that there were two respondents before the said authority. A) The owner of the property and B) the Service Provider. Both have been proceeded against ex parte on 19.06.2015. The owner of the property thereafter had presented himself before the authority on 23.12.2016. The impugned order passed by the Authority i.e. Commissioner, MC, Shimla, had directed demolition of the illegal unauthorized structure in question and fastened a liability, in terms of a penalty upon the service provider. Unauthorized construction, in the case at hand, is a telecom tower installed by Chennai Network Infrastructure Ltd., on the petitioner’s property. Order of demolition was passed against both the respondents. 4. Appeal against the impugned order dated 03.08.2019, was preferred by the owner of the building. In the appeal so preferred, only the Municipal Corporation had been impleaded as party. Conspicuous by absence, was the service provider i.e. 3 Chennai Network Infrastructure Limited (hereinafter referred as CNIL). 5. Admittedly, in the case at hand, proceedings before the First Appellate Court have been held in the absence of CNIL. CNIL is a necessary party to the litigation. The alleged unauthorized telecom tower, which is a subject matter, in the case at hand, has been installed by CNIL. Principles of natural justice require that CNIL be heard in the matter before any adverse order is passed. Since the impugned orders visits CNIL with serious civil consequences, therefore, it is imperative that CNIL should have also been heard in the matter before passing the impugned order. 6. In view thereof, impugned judgment dated 20.07.2021, passed by the First Appellate Court, is quashed and set aside. 7. Parties are directed to appear before the learned First Appellate Court on 01.08.2025. Before proceeding further in the matter, CNIL, shall be impleaded in the appeal, as a respondent. It goes without saying that on their impleadment, requisite 4 necessary notices of the appeal before the First Appellate Court, shall be sent to the newly arrayed respondent. Proceedings, in the case at hand, be disposed of, as expeditiously as possible by the First Appellate Court, subject to the convenience of the said Court. 8. Accordingly, present petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 10th July, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)