IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.31 of 2025 Date of Decision: 16.09.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Suni Ram & Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus Anupam Kashyap …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Aasheesh Patial, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) While placing on record communication dated 15.09.2025, issued under the signatures of Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that in terms of directions contained in judgment, alleged to have been violated, directions already stand issued to Block Development Officer, Rampur, to carry out restoration work of the path in question strictly in terms of judgment passed by this Court. He states that though some of the villagers are not permitting the department to construct a road, but taking note of mandate contained in the judgment, alleged to have been violated, necessary direction already stands issued to Block Development 2 Officer, Rampur, to ensure that restoration work of the path is carried out strictly in terms of judgment passed by this Court. 2. Having carefully perused aforesaid communication as well as documents annexed therewith, this Court finds that Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, after having sanctioned Rs.5,00,000/- for the restoration work of the path in question, sent the Block Development Officer on the spot for carrying out construction activity, but construction activity could not be carried out on the spot for the reason that some of the villagers raised objection with regard to restoration of path. However, afore authority having taken note of observation made by this Court on the last date of hearing as well as mandate contained in the judgment, alleged to have been violated, has categorically directed Block Development Officer, vide communication dated 15.07.2025, to ensure that restoration work of the path in question is carried out strictly as per direction issued by this Court in CWP No.11227 of 2024, titled as Suni Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others and not on the basis of conveniences of Batuna village. 3. In view of the above, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant petition and accordingly, the same is disposed of with a direction to Block Development Officer, Rampur, to ensure that restoration work of the path in question is carried out expeditiously, 3 preferably within two weeks. In case, any person causes hindrance in restoration work of the path, name of such person may be brought to notice of this Court, so that appropriate proceedings under contempt of Court Act are initiated against him. September 16, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Sunil) Judge