IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 1291 of 2016 Decided on 15th July, 2025 Sh. Himanshu Gupta …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 3. Mr. C.N. Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Mr. Praneet Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:- i. “That appropriate orders and directions may be issued to the respondents No.1 to 4 that they should give immediately all the benefits of Rehabilitation Scheme framed by the State Govt. of Himachal Pradesh for the oustees of Kol Dam Project, in favour of petitioners. 2 ii. That the respondents may be directed to allot a plot in favour of the petitioners in village and Post Office Suni, Tehsil Suni as has been done in the case of all similarly situated persons. In the alternative, the plot which has been sanctioned in favour of Late Shri Prem Lal Gupta on 04.01.2006, by the Deputy Commissioner Shimla as entered against plot No.17 in the size of 50x40 in khasra No.82/17 situated at Mauja Suni, Tehsil Suni, District Shimla, may be ordered to be transferred and allotted in the name of petitioners.” 2. When the matter was taken up for consideration, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 has brought to the notice of the Court the judgment of this Court passed in CWP No.7468 of 2010, titled Kol Bandh Jan Kalyan Samiti through its President Babu Ram versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 22.05.20217. By placing reliance on the order passed by this Court in the said writ petition, learned counsel has submitted that as earlier the representation filed by the petitioner was not being decided by the authorities in the light of the pendency of CWP No.7468 of 2010 and as now the said petition stands disposed of, these proceedings can be culminated by directing the authorities to take a call on the representation of the 3 petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner be given liberty to approach the authorities afresh by way of a fresh representation and the authorities be directed to decide the same within a time bound period uninfluenced by Annexure P-17 appended with the petition. 3. Without making any observation on the merits of the case, this petition is disposed of with the direction that in the event of the petitioner file a fresh representation on the issues that have been raised in this petition within four weeks from today, let the authority concerned take a call thereupon within a period of eight weeks as from the date of the receipt of the representation. The representation be decided by passing a speaking order, uninfluenced by Annexure P-17 dated 06.07.2013, and after hearing all the stake holders. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 15, 2025 (Vinod)