2025:HHC:596-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1805 of 2022 Date of Decision: 3.1.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Sanjeev Sood ……...Petitioner Versus The Municipal Corporation and Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Udit Shaurya Kaushik, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr.Vijay Singh Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite there being approval of the competent authority and availability of funds, no steps are being taken by respondent No.2 SJPNL, for laying of the 150mm Sewerage Pipes from IGMC, Shimla to Bharari, as a result thereof, petitioner as well as other residents of the area are suffering. 2. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondent No.2 filed reply, stating therein that work in question 2025:HHC:596-DB - 2 - could not be executed on account of civil disputes filed by some of the local residents. 3. Having take note of the aforesaid stand put forth by respondent No.2, Hon’ble Division Bench of this court passed order dated 2.8.2022, which reads as under: “Time is granted to enable respondent No.1 -Corporation to file reply- affidavit. In the meantime, it is expected of the respondent No.1- Corporation as well as respondent No.2- Shimla Jal Prabandhan Nigam Limited to take steps to apply to vacate the interim injunctions granted in the Civil Suit Nos. 9 and 13 of 20121 and apply for withdrawal of the statement made in Civil Suit No. 154 of 2020, titled Shadi Ram Thakur Vs. M.C. Shimla & Ors. and ensure that due procedure of law is followed and there is no impediment in laying the sewerage pipelines from North side Valley of Bharari to STP Snowdon, which is stated to be an infrastructure project for which an amount of Rs.2,31,45,226/- has already been sanctioned.” 4. Pursuant to direction contained in the afore order, on 15.6.2023, Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court came to be apprised that Civil Suits No. 154 of 2020, 9 of 2021 and 13 of 2021 are pending before the Civil Judge (Jr. Div) Court No.4, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, but there is no incumbent posted in the said Court, as a result thereof, respondents are unable to do the needful in terms of order dated 2.8.2022, wherein direction was issued to take steps to vacate the interim injunction granted in the afore civil suits. Vide afore order dated 15.6.2023, this court directed the Civil Judge (Sr. Di.)-cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, to order transfer of the afore suits to his own court within four weeks, enabling the 2025:HHC:596-DB - 3 - respondents to take appropriate steps for doing the needful in terms of order dated 2.8.2022. 5. On 14.11.2024, learned counsel for respondent No.2 as per instructions imparted to him informed that all suits i.e. 154 of 2020, 9 of 2021 and 13 of 2021 stand disposed of/dismissed, but application having been filed by respondent No.2 for withdrawal of statement made in CS No. 154 of 2020, is still pending adjudication. 6. Having taken note of the aforesaid statement made by learned counsel for respondent No.2, this Court directed the learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Shimla, to decide pending application filed by respondent No.2 in CS No. 154 of 2020, within two weeks. 7. Today, during proceedings of the case, learned counsel for respondent No.2 made available copy of order dated 25.11.2024, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge Court No.1, Shimla, thereby rejecting the prayer made by respondent No.2 to withdraw the voluntary statement made before the court on 14.12.2021, to the effect that respondent No.2 shall not lay pipe till the time plaintiff so permits. 8. If order dated 25.11.2024, is read in entirety, it clearly reveals that court below having taken note of the fact that civil suit, wherein afore statement was made, stood already dismissed, there was no occasion, if any, for the court below to permit respondent No.2 to withdraw the statement, which otherwise had lost its efficacy on 2025:HHC:596-DB - 4 - account of dismissal of the suit. Now, in view of the facts noticed herein above, there appears to be no impediment, if any, for respondent No.2 to lay the sewerage pipe, as detailed herein above. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 fairly states that since civil suit already stands disposed of, adequate steps shall be taken by respondent No.2 to complete the work expeditiously. 10. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is allowed and respondent No.2 is directed to complete the work of laying of sewerage pipe expeditiously, preferably, within eight months. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms alongwith pending applications, if any. January 3, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), manjit Judge