2025:HHC:1416 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition No.15264 of 2024 Date of Decision: 07.01.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Sudheer Ramaul ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Vivek Singh Attri, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. Mr. Ajay Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: i. That the present petition may be allowed and the respondent no. 2 to 3 may be directed to ensure actions pursuant to notices dated 07.07.2021 and 05.10.2021 issued by the respondent no. 3. ii. To direct the respondent no. 1 to initiate disciplinary action against the officer responsible to take action under service rules for not taking any action despite the issuance of notices for removal of encroachments. iii. To direct the respondent no. 3 to produce record pertaining to illegal encroachment over ‘Gair mumkin Rasta’ against which notices were issued. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Vivek Singh 2025:HHC:1416 2 Attri, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that though respondent No.3, taking note of complaint made by petitioner regarding unauthorized construction raised by respondent No.4, issued notice to him, but till date, no further proceedings have taken place. Perusal of notice dated 05.10.2021 (Annexure P-4) reveals that Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Nahan, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, had issued notice under Section 203 & 211 of H.P. Municipal Act, 1994, to respondent No.4 to stop and demolish the unauthorized construction within 15 days, as indicated in the notice, but as per petitioner, neither respondent No.4 has demolished the unauthorized construction nor specific orders, if any, have been passed by respondent No.3, pursuant to notices issued under Section 203 & 211 of H.P. Municipal Act, 1994 and as such, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for reliefs, as have been reproduced hereinabove. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondent No.3, Mr. Ajay Chauhan, Advocate, states that though he has reason to presume and believe that notices dated 07.07.2021 and 05.10.2021 must have been taken to logical end, but if not, same shall be positively taken to logical end within some reasonable time. 4. Consequently, in view of fair stand adopted by learned counsel representing respondent No.3, coupled with the prayer made by petitioner, whereby only direction has been sought to respondent 2025:HHC:1416 3 No.3 to ensure action upon the notices dated 07.07.2021 and 05.10.2021, this Court without commenting upon the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with the direction to respondent No.3 to ensure appropriate action in accordance with law against respondent No.4 is taken, pursuant to notices dated 07.07.2021 and 05.10.2021, if not already taken. Ordered accordingly. 5. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as other stakeholders, especially respondent No.4 and pass a speaking order thereafter. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Present petition stands disposed of, along with pending applications, if any. January 07, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi Judge