IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.17895 of 2025 Decided on 01st December 2025 Satish Abrol …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Narender Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.P. Singh, Deputy Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has approached this Court praying for the following reliefs:- “a) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction, including a writ in the nature of mandamus, Direct the respondent authorities to take immediate and effective action to remove all unauthorized vehicles, vendors, and encroachments from the "No Parking Zone" situated near the leased parking sites at Suja and Keori (Bir), District Kangra, H.P.; 2 b) Direct the respondents to provide and ensure basic amenities, including water and electricity facilities, at the leased parking sites in terms of the lease agreement tender conditions; c) Direct the respondents to convene a joint meeting of all concerned departments for resolving the operational issues being faced by the petitioner and to ensure smooth functioning of the leased parking areas; d) Direct the respondents to compensate the petitioner for the financial losses suffered due to their continued inaction and failure to discharge their obligations under the lease agreement or refund the lease amount to petitioner; e) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction, including a writ in the nature of mandamus, thereby directing the respondent authorities to take immediate and effective action against the illegal, arbitrary, and monopolistic activities of the local taxi union operating at the tourist site of Bir, Baijnath, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh.” 2. The primary prayer of the petitioner is that recently in an auction he has successfully bid for two parking sites for a period of two years for an amount of Rs.18,60,000/-, but on account of unauthorized parking being permitted by the law enforcers in the no parking zone and on the road side, the 3 same is creating public nuisance as well as causing financial loss to the petitioner, as no one is utilizing his parking. 3. Learned Deputy Advocate General on the other hand submits that wherever vehicles are being parked in violation of any parking norms, obviously, the owners of the said vehicles shall be dealt with in accordance with law, but, the respondent-authorities are not to facilitate the business of the petitioner and for that he has to find out his own ways and means. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is also not making a prayer that the respondents should facilitate his business, however, all that he is requesting is that the sanctity of the no parking zone should be maintained and vehicles should not be allowed to be parked in the no parking zone. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Deputy Advocate General, this petition is disposed of with the direction that, in case, indeed a no parking zone has been identified by the Authority, then, it be ensured that no vehicles are parked in the no parking zone. This Court 4 is not passing this direction to favour the petitioner, but, if the authorities have declared a particular area to be a no parking zone, then, they are bound to maintain the sanctity of their order and ensure that no vehicles are parked in the no parking zone. 6. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has also prayed for issuance of a direction to the authorities to ensure basic amenities in his parking area including water and electricity facility. As far as, this prayer of the petitioner is concerned, the authorities are directed that, in case, the petitioner has filed any representation or has made any application in this regard, then, the same be dealt with in accordance with law and whatever basic amenities, the petitioner is entitled to, to have in the parking area, be released in favour of the petitioner expeditiously. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge December 01, 2025 (Vinod)