Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 5550 (HP)

RITA CHAUDHARY v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

CMP/1051/2025 · 2025-01-09

Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, Satyen Vaidya

Public Interest Litigationbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Rita Chaudhary Vs. State of H.P. & Others. CWPIL No. 106 of 2024. Item No. (S-8) 09.01.2025 Present: Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1, 2 and 4 to 9. Mr. Sandeep Dutta, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Devender Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.10 and 11. CMP No.1051 of 2025. This application has been filed on behalf of respondents No.10 and 11 for interim directions that the petitioner be restrained from doing digging excavation and construction work in the area of Kansa Khad with JCB. It is brought to our notice that on 03.12.2024, respondents No.10 and 11 had been restrained from carrying out any excavation/digging for the construction work etc., in Kansa Khad and respondent No.6 had also been directed to ensure that this order is complied with in its letter and spirit. Vide subsequent order dated 30.12.2024, it was also directed that the physical inspection of the site be carried out and demarcation be conducted to resolve the issue. There is no dispute at that present, there is a JCB machine at the site, which is even admitted by the petitioner. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner or any person authorized by him or near vicinity, would have no right to excavate or dig the said area, once the Court is seized of the matter. Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate undertakes on behalf of the petitioner that any authorized person shall not use any heavy machinery for excavation or carry out digging activities in the said Khad area, which may adversely affect the demarcation process. Accordingly, we further direct the State to ensure that no other person, apart from the parties concerned, shall do any such activities as the Court is already seized of the matter. Accordingly, order be complied with by respondent No.6 and also respondent No.8-Deputy Commissioner, Mandi. The application stands disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 9th January, 2025 (munish thakur)