IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.964 of 2024 Date of Decision: 5.6.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Bhajan Dass ……...Petitioner Versus Shakti Negi …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Daleep Singh Kaith and Ms. Saroj, Advocates. For the Respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Pursuant to order dated 22.5.2025, Mr. Shakti Kumar Negi, Executive Engineer, HPPWD, Rampur, has come present. He has also filed compliance affidavit, perusal whereof reveals that pursuant to directions contained in order dated 29.7.2024, adequate steps have been taken for protection of the house. Photographs annexed with the affidavit reveal that department is in process of constructing breast wall of 65 meters in length, out of which, wall of 45 meters already stands constructed and remaining shall be completed within ten days. 2 2. Though Mr. Daleep Singh Kaith, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner while making this Court available fresh photographs attempted to argue that work is not of good quality, because one can see with his eyes that dry masonry is being done on the spot and no proper quantity of cement is being used, as such, breast wall can collapse at any time, however, Executive Engineer, present in the court, has disputed afore claim of the learned counsel for the petitioner by stating that gabion wall (wire crate) has been constructed and dry masonry wall with vertical and horizontal bonds in cement mortar with height of 2.45 meters is almost complete. He states that afore wall can stay on the spot because concrete wall as is being demanded by the residents cannot withstand the pressure of the earth. He further states that department has been otherwise constructing retaining wall in rural areas using aforesaid method and same has been found to be successful. 3. In view of the aforesaid compliance and the statement made by the Officer present in the Court, no action of the respondents can be said to be contumacious and as such, there appears to be no justification to keep the present petition alive and accordingly, same is disposed of with direction to the authority concerned to ensure that retaining wall on the spot is completed within two weeks. 3 4. Consequently, in view of the above, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings and accordingly, same are closed. Notice, if any, stands discharged. June 5, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge