IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.859 of 2025 Decided on: 24.02.2025 Imran Akhtar … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Tara Chand Chauhan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Surya Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 4 and 6. Mr. Naresh Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Mr. V.B. Verma, Senior Panel Counsel, for respondent No.7. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Notice confined to respondents No.1 to 6 only. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. Naresh Verma, Advocate and Mr. V.B. Verma, Advocate, accept notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4, respondent No.6 and respondent No.7, respectively. 2. With the consent of the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Advocate General, learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Council Bilaspur and learned counsel appearing 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 for the Union of India, the petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. No notice is being issued to the private respondents as the Court does not intends to pass any order which is prejudicial to the interest of the said respondents. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that unauthorized construction is being raised by the private respondents and despite the fact that the matter stands brought to the notice of respondent No.5 by the petitioner and in terms of Annexure P-5, which is an order dated 26.12.2024, Executive Officer Municipal Council Bilaspur has ordered the respondents to discontinue/stop the unauthorized construction over the land referred to in the said order, yet, neither the unauthorized construction has been stopped by the private respondents, nor any further action is being taken up in the matter by the Municipal Council Bilaspur. 4. Learned Additional Advocate General as well as learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Council Bilaspur, submit that the complaint that has been received from the petitioner shall be taken to its logical conclusion in accordance with law and by complying with the principles of natural justice within reasonable time. 5. This Court is of the considered view that as respondent No.5 is already seized of the matter and further, as the private respondents have to be heard by the Authority concerned before passing the final order in the complaint that has been filed by the 3 petitioner, therefore, without making any observation on the issue raised by the petitioner in the writ petition, this petition is disposed of with the direction that let the complaint that has been filed by the petitioner and on the basis of which order dated 26.12.2024 has been issued, be finally decided by the Authority concerned on or before 31st March, 2025. This of course shall be in accordance with law and by adhering to the principles of natural justice. This Court expects that the private respondents shall fully cooperate in the disposal of the complaint within the time schedule mentioned by the Court. Any party which creates any hindrance in the compliance of the direction issued by this Court shall be personally held responsible for contempt of the directions passed by this Court. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge February 24, 2025 (Vinod)