2025:HHC:33210 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 13627 of 2025 Decided on: 23.09.2025 Shivani Sood … Petitioner Versus Municipal Corporation, Shimla and another … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Praneet Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has approached this Court inter alia praying for the following reliefs:- “(I) That a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to construct the lift/elevator measuring 1600x1600 mm in their front set back at a distance of 1 meter from the building and to avoid danger to the stability to the entire building by dismantling part of balconies and stairs. II. That the writ of mandamus be issued to Respondents to direct Respondents to allow the access to the lift from the road level instead from the level shown in the plan which is more than 18 feet above from the road level. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:33210 III. To direct the respondents by issuing appropriate order or direction not to compel the petitioner to comply with the condition to construct a Rainwater harvesting tank. IV. To direct the Respondents not to compel the petitioner to dismantle part of balconies and stairs.” 2. When this case was listed before the Court on 25.08.2025, the following order was passed:- “Issue notice. Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. The grievance of the petitioner is that whereas her prayer for setting up a lift in the setback area is not being considered by the respondent-authority, whereas, in immediate vicinity a lift has been allowed to be installed in the setback area. As prayed for, list on 28.08.2025, to enable learned counsel for the respondents to have instructions as to why the petitioner is being discriminated.” 3. Thereafter, on 28.08.2025, this Court passed the following order:- “Learned counsel for the respondents submits that as of now, there is no proposed revised plan with the Municipal Corporation vis-à-vis the issue that has been raised by the petitioner in this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revised plan which was submitted was not entertained and 3 2025:HHC:33210 was remitted back to the petitioner. Be that as it may, as learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proposed revised plan shall be submitted to the Municipal Corporation by 01.09.2025. Respondent- Corporation is directed to entertain the revised plan and take a decision thereupon before the next date of hearing. List on 10.09.2025.” 4. Today, learned Counsel for the respondent-Corporation apprises the Court that necessary approval for the purpose of installation of the lift shall be granted to the petitioner, subject to deposition of requisite amount by her. 5. In view of this, the respondent-Corporation is directed to raise a demand to the petitioner for deposition of requisite amount as per law within a period of one week from today. As from the date of receipt of demand, the petitioner shall deposit said amount within two weeks. As from the deposition of the amount by the petitioner, the petitioner shall be entitled to install the lift. 6. At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that now as there is no impediment in the grant of completion certificate, the respondent-Corporation be directed to issue the completion certificate. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the completion certificate shall be issued in favour of the petitioner once all the formalities in this regard are complete. The petition stands disposed of in above terms. Pending 4 2025:HHC:33210 miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 23, 2025 (narender)