2025:HHC:13605 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 4307 of 2025. Decided on : 13.05.2025 Narotam Singh. …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. Raju Ram Rahi, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondents No.3 & 4. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “I) That a Writ in the nature of Mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the Respondents No. 2 to decide the complaint dated 04-04-2024 & 7-10-2024 (Annexure-P/3 & P/4) within a time bound manner by taking into consideration the provisions of section 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:13605 122 & 137 to 147 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act & Rules in the interest of justice. II) That a writ of Mandamus may kindly be issued, thereby directing the Deputy Commissioner mandi to take appropriate steps in accordance with law into the matter and ensure the smooth and fair functioning of the Gram Panchayat Lot so that no hurdle can halt the progress and development activities of the Gram Panchayat Lot as per Panchayati Raj Act & Rules. III) That action may be taken against respondent No.4 who is the husband of respondent No.3 Ward Member being acting as Ward Member at the place of respondent No.3 and is intervening and causing the hurdle into the smooth functioning of the office of Gram Panchayat Lot illegally and without any authority of law.” 2. Though no notice has been issued to the private respondents, but Mr. Roop Lal Chaudhary, learned counsel, has put in appearance on behalf of respondents No.3 & 4. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as 3 2025:HHC:13605 well as learned Additional Advocate General and learned counsel for the private respondents, this Court is of the considered view that as it is per se a personal dispute between the petitioner and respondents No.3 & 4, more so, in the light of the fact that as submitted by Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate, now proceedings have been initiated amongst others against the private respondents by the petitioner under the provisions of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, any indulgence shown by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would act to the deterrent of either of the parties in proceedings inter se them. 4. Therefore, these proceedings are closed, with the observation that in case, the petitioner so desires, he may do the needful in terms of the provisions of Section 122 and 146 of the Panchayat Raj Act, by filing a proper petition, restricting himself to the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act and violations thereof. If any such petition is preferred by the petitioner before the Statutory Authority, the Authority shall proceed with the same, in accordance with law. It is clarified 4 2025:HHC:13605 that this Court has not made any observation as far as the allegations levelled by the petitioner against the private respondents are concerned. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 13, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)