2025:HHC:37714 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPIL No.10 of 2025 Date of Decision:- 03.11.2025 Court on its own motion ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Others ....Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Deven Krishan Khanna and Ms. Priya Sharma, Advocates as Amicus Curiae. For the Respondents : Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral). The present Public Interest Litigation has been registered in view of the representation given by one H.S. Garg (S/o Sh. Kripa Ram), Senior Citizen resident of Village & P.O- Rampuri Shimla-11. 2. The allegations were made that patch of 201 meters between Baag and Rampuri requires to be connected for the last fifteen years and there is a Government land footpath of 13 feet 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:37714 to 20 feet between the joining of Shimla bypass which stands encroached by some relatives of Ex MLA Sh. Sohan Lal. 3. The stand of the respondents-State in the affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner is that the width of the path is not more than 2 to 3 meters measuring length of 387 meters which is “Gair Mumkin Rasta” and there is no encroachment on the land. 4. Learned Amicus Curiae has also filed written submissions after visiting the spot and attached the photographs and also mentioned that PWD norms requires a minimum carriageway width of 5.5 meters (for rural single-lane standards). 5. We have also gone through the photographs appended as such alongwith the google site-plan photographs and found that path in question apparently is a pedestrian path connected to the portions in question and there are various constructions in the form of houses already raised, abutting the path. 6. The report of the State is that there are no encroachment. Needless to say that only for the purpose of the present representation, we are not observing on the merits of the case as no specific case is made out by filing of mere representation. 3 2025:HHC:37714 7. In such circumstances, we do not deem it fit to further proceed with the present Public Interest Litigation. 8. Accordingly, the present petition stands closed. 9. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, shall also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge 3rd November, 2025 (munish thakur)