2025:HHC:23304 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 11539 of 2025 Decided on : 18.07.2025 Smt. Meenakshi Gupta. …Petitioner Versus Union of India and others. …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Senior Advocate, with M/s Shekhar Badola and Rupesh Kumar, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Harish Sharma, Senior Panel Counsel, for respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.3, 4 & 6. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Notice. Mr. Harish Sharma, learned Senior Panel Counsel and Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, accept notice on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2 and respondents No.3, 4 & 6. 2. In the light of the controversy involved in this writ 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:23304 petition, the same is being disposed of at this stage, with the consent of the parties. 3. The petitioner herein has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “I. That the order dated 11.07.2025 at Annexure P-2, whereby the shop of the Petitioner situated in Ward No.2, Municipal Council Sujanpur Tihra, District Hamirpur has been ordered to be demolished, may kindly be quashed and set aside and the Respondents may kindly be restrained from demolishing the shop of the Petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that Annexure P-2, in terms whereof it has been directed that the alleged unauthorized construction carried out by the petitioner, be demolished in the light of the contents of Annexure P-2, is not sustainable in the eyes of law, for the reason that the order has been issued adversely affecting the petitioner, without following any process and without hearing the petitioner. He submits that no show cause notice etc. was issued to the petitioner before the issuance of Annexure P-2 and the petitioner has been condemned unheard. He further 3 2025:HHC:23304 submits that even otherwise also, the petitioner cannot be evicted from the property without following the due process of law. 5. In the light of the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel and further in the light of the fact that a perusal of Annexure P-2 does not demonstrates that any due process was followed or any notice etc. was given to the petitioner before issuance of Annexure P-2, said order is quashed qua the petitioner and it is further directed that no action in terms of Annexure P-2, shall be taken against the petitioner. However, in case, the respondents do intend to take any action against any unauthorized construction carried out by the petitioner, then they may do so but by following the due process of law. 6. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of in above- said terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 18, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)