IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.12299 of 2026 Decided on: 23rd July, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Saligram …..Petitioner Versus Municipal Corporation, Shimla and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vinod Sharma and Ms. Mamta Bhatwan, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice confined to respondent No.1, which is waived by Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned counsel. Considering the grievance of the petitioner, the pleadings, stand of learned counsel for respondent No.1 and the nature of order being passed hereinafter, reply to the writ petition is not required to be called for from the appearing respondent. Notice is also not required to be issued to respondent No.2. Matter has accordingly been heard at this stage. 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2. Petitioner has alleged that respondent No.2 has been carrying out unauthorized construction by installing iron angle steel structure on the roof of fourth floor of his building located at Khasra No.3863, Patwar Circle Patyog, Tehsil Shimla (Urban), District Shimla. The said building is stated to be adjoining to petitioner’s owned building. Petitioner has also alleged infringement of his easementry rights by the aforesaid alleged unauthorized construction. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the petitioner preferred a complaint dated 03.07.2026 (Annexure P-3) to respondent No.1-Municipal Corporation, Shimla, highlighting the violations allegedly being committed by respondent No.2 and consequent danger to his house, however, no action has been taken by respondent No.1. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for respondent No.1-Corporation has placed on record copy of notices dated 06.07.2026 and 20.07.2026 issued to respondent No.2. In terms of the notices, the site in question was inspected by the concerned official; During inspection, it was found that an iron angle steel structure has been unauthorizedly erected by respondent No.2 on the fourth storey of the existing building without obtaining prior 3 permission from the competent authority. Accordingly, notice under Section 254(1) of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 (in short ‘the Act’) was issued to respondent No.2 on 06.07.2026, directing him to stop the unauthorized construction, however, the unauthorized construction was not stopped. This led respondent No.1-Corporation to issue notice dated 20.07.2026, directing respondent No.2 to produce the building sanction or approved building plan with respect to the construction being carried out by him at the site. Failure to do so is to entail further action in terms of the provisions of the Act. 5. Since respondent No.1 has already taken cognizance of the representation of the petitioner and is already proceeding further in the matter in accordance with law, this writ petition is disposed of by directing respondent No.1 to ensure that further action in furtherance of the notices dated 06.07.2026 and 20.07.2026 is promptly taken in accordance with law after hearing the version of respondent No.2. It shall be open for the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law at an appropriate stage, in case necessity so arises in future. The petitioner shall also be at liberty to seek enforcement of his 4 easementry rights in accordance with law. All rights and contentions of the parties including respondent No.2 are left open. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 23, 2026 Judge Mukesh