2025:HHC:1388 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.499 of 2025 Date of Decision: 07.01.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Davender Kumar Gautam ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanket Sankhyan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C Verma & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents/ State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein is aggrieved of order dated 16.12.2024 (Annexure P-6) passed by Assistant Engineer, Sub Division No. II, HP PWD, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, further confirmed by Executive Engineer, Bilaspur Division No. 1, HP PWD, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, vide order dated 23.12.2024 (Annexure P-7), whereby petitioner has been ordered to remove the unauthorized construction raised on Government land within a period of two days. 2. Careful perusal of averments made in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit as well as other material adduced on record clearly reveals that on account of unauthorized construction 2025:HHC:1388 raised by the petitioner on Government land, notice under Rule (4) (I) (b) of Himachal Pradesh Road Protection Rules, 2004 came to be issued to the petitioner for contravention of prohibited acts on Road Infrastructure as provided under Section 3 of Himachal Pradesh Road Infrastructure Protection Act, 2002 (hereinafter “Act”). Before passing orders, respondent/department got the land demarcated and ultimately order laid challenge in the instant proceedings came to be passed. Since there is a specific remedy proceeded under Section 9 of the Act to file an appeal against the order passed by the confirmatory authority i.e. Executive Engineer, there appears to be no justification for this Court to entertain the present petition, rather the same deserves to be dismissed as not maintainable. 3. Faced with aforesaid situation, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file appeal to the competent authority as provided under the Act within a period of three days. Ordered accordingly. Since petitioner has already been granted time till 09.01.2025, coupled with the fact that he is inclined to file an appeal in terms of provision contained under Section 9 of the Act, this Court deems it fit to direct the respondent not to take coercive steps, pursuant to order dated 16.12.2024 passed by the authority for at least 10 days, by which time, prayer, if any, made by the petitioner for staying the order passed by the Assistant Engineer shall be considered by the appellate 2 2025:HHC:1388 authority in accordance with law. Needless to say, till disposal of interim application, if any, petitioner herein shall not cause any hindrance to the respondent/PWD as far as development of the road in question is concerned. January 07, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3