2025:HHC:1690 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.70 of 2024 Date of Decision: 08.01.2025 _______________________________________________________ Ramesh Kumar & another …….Petitioners Versus Amandeep Garg & others … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Rohan Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): While placing on record communication dated 06.01.2025, issued under the signatures of Executive Engineer, HP PWD Division Nerchowk, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, learned Additional Advocate General states that steps for acquisition proceedings in terms of the judgment alleged to have been violated stand initiated, subject to final outcome of the SLP, so filed against the judgment passed by this Court. 2. Perusal of aforesaid communication, which is taken on record, clearly reveals that pursuant to the mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated, necessary papers for issuance of notification under Section 11 of the Act are being prepared and submitted to the higher authorities and notification 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:1690 under Section 11 of the Act shall be issued immediately after completion of the codal formalities. 3. Though, careful perusal of aforesaid communication reveals that the steps already stand taken for implementation of the judgment alleged to have been violated, but no specific time frame has been given. Learned Additional Advocate General states that notification under Section 11 of the Act shall be issued expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months. 4. Consequently, in view of the undertaking given by learned Additional Advocate General as well as decision of the Government to implement the judgment, subject to final outcome of the SLP, there appears to be no justification to keep the present petition alive and accordingly same is disposed of. Petitioners are at liberty to get the present proceedings revived in case respondents fail to do the needful within the time stipulated by this Court, so that appropriate action, in accordance with law is taken against the erring officials. Notices issued to the respondents are hereby discharged accordingly. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge January 08,2025 (shankar)