2025:HHC:35995 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 16867 of 2025 Decided on: 29.10.2025 Rajpal and another … Petitioners Versus Union of India and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioners : Mr. Karun Negi, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Virbahadur Verma, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Notice. Mr. Virbahadur Verma, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:- “To issue the writ of certiorari or writ of similar nature thereby issuing quashing and setting aside the cancellation of license of shops of the petitioners (Annexure P-7) and eviction notice dated 20.09.2025 (Annexure P-8). ii) To issue the writ of mandamus or writ of similar nature thereby issuing directing the respondent authorities not to interfere in the smooth working of the shop No.1 and shop No. 1A by the petitioners in any manner and not to dispossess the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:35995 petitioners from the shops in questions constructed over the land (Annexure P-1).” 3. The impugned order is Annexure P-7, relevant portion whereof reads as under:- “This is in reference to aforementioned subject that, the owner of the following shop were passed away and licensing of shop owner is ceased. Sr. No. Railway Shop No. Location/ Station Area of shop (sqm) Name of shop keepas 1. Rly shop no. 2 Near railway station, Taksal 11.15 Jethoo 2. Rly shop no. 4 Near railway station, Taksal 11.15 Tara Singh 3. Rly shop no. 8 Near railway station, Taksal 11.15 Raghubir Prakash 4. Rly. Shop no. DMP-1 At Railway Station Dharampur 22.3 Jagdish Chand 5. Rly shop no. DMP-2 At Railway Station Dharampur 11.15 Gurbax Singh In this regard, it was advised to vacate the shops and submit report of this office. But more than six month has been passed & no action taken by your office. So it is again advised to depute concerned SSE/Works to vacate the shop immediately and submit report to this office.” 4. This Court is of the considered view that the petition is premature. It goes without saying that the Authorities have a right to get the premises vacated from the petitioner if he is in unauthorized occupation thereof but strictly in accordance with law. In these circumstances as the present proceedings are premature, the same 3 2025:HHC:35995 are closed with the observation that the respondents shall proceed against the petitioner if so advised strictly in accordance with law. It further goes without saying that if any action is taken against the petitioners by the respondents in violation of the settled principles of law, then the same shall entail consequences even as far as the respondents are concerned. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge October 29, 2025 (narender)