IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8797 of 2026 Decided on: 30.06.2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mohit Kumar …..Petitioner Versus Dr. N.K.Gupta and Ors. ....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. George, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anshul Attri, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge This writ petiton has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “(i) That the impugned order Dated 24.04.2026 Annexure P-10 passed by Ld. Appellate Authority Cum Chief Secretary to the government of Himachal Pradesh may kindly be quashed and set aside being without Jurisdiction, illegal, unjust, unfair, arbitrary and also against the principals of fairness and the natural Justice. ii). That the Appellants are not legally entitled to file an appeal under section 32 of the HP T& CP Act therefore, the appeal filed before the Ld. Appellate Authority Cum Chief Secretary to the government of 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 Himachal Pradesh is nothing but a sheer abuse of the process law as the Ld. Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the said appeal, the same is therefore liable to quashed and set- aside.” 2. Respondents No. 1 to 3 had preferred an appeal under Section 32 of the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act,1977, before the Appellate Authority- cum- Chief Secretary, Government of Himachal Pradesh. The appeal was preferred against the order dated 19.03.2026 passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Solan, -Respondent No.5. The said order dated 19.03.2026, inter-alia, records the view of respondent No.5 that planning permission case of present petitioner had been approved based on the actual records available and not on misrepresentation of facts on his behalf; That present petitioner was the victim/sufferer of failed system of implementation of laws, unfortunate lack of co- ordination between departments and people taking advantage of the situation, as such it was held that petitioner cannot be made to suffer. The construction carried out by the petitioner after getting the map approved and in accordance with the permission granted to him, cannot be declared unauthorized. Alongwith the appeal preferred against the 3 aforesaid order, respondents No. 1 to 3 also moved a miscellaneous application seeking interim relief for staying the operation of order dated 19.03.2026 passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Solan ( respondent No.5). On this application, the Appellate Authority vide order dated 24.04.2026, passed the orders staying the operation of the impugned order dated 19.03.2026. Petitioner was also restrained from carrying out any construction of building upon the land in question measuring 291 sq. mtrs, situated at Mohal Basal, Patti Kather, Tehsil and District Solan, H.P., till further orders. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes out grievance that application seeking interim relief has been disposed of by the Appellate Authority-cum-Chief Secretary, to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, on 24.04.2026 without hearing the version of the petitioner; That order dated 24.04.2026, passed by the Appellate Authority adversely affects the rights of the petitioner, which had been vindicated by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Solan. Another objection taken is that the appeal preferred by respondents No. 1 to 3 is not even maintainable before the Appellate Authority. 4 Learned counsel for respondents No. 1to 3 does not dispute the fact that the impugned order dated 24.04.2026 had been passed without issuance of notice to the present petitioner and that no opportunity of hearing was accorded to the petitioner while passing the interim order dated 24.04.2026, whereudner, the interim application stands disposed of. 4. Learned counsel for the parties have jointly apprised that the main matter is coming up for further consideration before the Appellate Authority tomorrow (01.07.2026). In view of the admitted factual position and there being non-compliance to the principles of natural justice, interest of justice would be served in case the Appellate Authority is directed to treat the impugned order dated 24.04.2026 (Annexure P-10) as ad-interim in nature by keeping the miscellaneous application for grant of interim relief pending. The said application be taken up for hearing petitioner’s version and for considering the same in accordance with law. Petitioner shall be at liberty to file his response to the application within two weeks from today, as prayed for. Operation of impugned order dated 24.04.2026 is extended by four weeks thereafter, within which the application shall be considered and decided in 5 accordance with law. Insofar as the objection of the petitioner for maintainability of the appeal is concerned, it is for the petitioner to raise the objection before the Appellate Authority and for the Appellate Authority to consider the same in accordance with law. With the above observations, the present writ petition to stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua June 30, 2026 Judge R.Atal