2025:HHC:36383-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 3799 of 2022 Decided on: 31.10.2025 Surinder Singh … Petitioners Versus Municipal Corporation, Snimla and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajeet Pal Singh Jaswal, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate for respondent No. 1. : Mr. Udit Shaurya Kaushik, Advocate for respondent No. 2. : Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 3. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the Respondent No. 1 and 2 to prove and install sewage connection in the premises of the petitioner. (ii) Respondents be directed to initiate action against No. 3 as per the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Municipal corporation Act, 1994 and obtain compliance as per the Act.” 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:36383-DB 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that on account of objection being raised by respondent No. 3, the petitioner is being denied sewerage connectivity, which as per the petitioner is a statutory right conferred upon him in terms of Section 269 of the Municipal Corporation Act. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that all that the petitioner wants is that he wants to lay down his own sewerage line and get it connected with the main sewerage line of the Municipal Corporation but this is being objected to by respondent No. 3 without any right. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 has submitted that the petitioner forcibly connected his sewerage line with the private sewerage line of respondent No. 3 which was objected to and rightly so as the petitioner has no legal right to join his sewerage line with the private sewerage line of respondent No 3. 5. Learned Counsel for respondent-Corporation apprises the Court that the petitioner and respondent No. 3 are the residents of different flats in the same building in Engine Ghar, Sanjauli. 6. Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel for the respondents, this Court is of the considered view that though the petitioner has no right to seek a sewerage connection by getting his sewerage pipeline connected with the private sewerage pipeline of respondent No. 3 but in law, the 3 2025:HHC:36383-DB petitioner has a right to get his sewerage pipeline connected with sewerage pipeline of the Municipal Corporation and to this, none can raise any hindrance, including respondent No. 3. 7. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with the direction that respondents No. 1 and 2, shall ensure that sewerage connectivity is given to the petitioner as upto the main sewerage line of the Municipal Corporation but the petitioner shall not have any right to connect his sewerage pipeline with private sewerage pipeline of respondent No. 3. Similarly, in the light of the proviso to sub-Section 3 of Section 269 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1994, respondent No. 3 shall not create any hindrance in the laying of the sewerage line of the petitioner if it has to pass either through the boundary or setbacks of the flat of respondent No. 3. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge October 31, 2025 (narender)