1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 4267 of 2026 Decided on: 06.04.2026 Bansi Ram …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr.Daleep Chand, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondents. In view of nature of grievance of the petitioner and the order being passed hereinafter, reply of this writ petition is not required to be called from the respondents. Matter has according been heard at this stage. 2. The case set up by the petitioner is that he is owner of certain parcels of land situated at Patwar Circle, Hallan, District Sirmour. During August-September, 2025, the retaining wall situated in front of petitioner’s house over the aforesaid land suffered extensive damage, 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 which in turn has caused danger to the house of the petitioner. Pursuant to a resolution passed by Gram Panchyat, Hallan on 09.09.2025 and directions of Higher Authorities, village Revenue Officer, Patwar Circle, Hallan inspected the spot and submitted his report. Based upon the aforesaid, the Assistant Commissioner (Dev.)-cum- Block Development Officer, Development Block, Shillai, District Sirmour got prepared the preliminary estimate for construction of a protection wall that had suffered loss. The preliminary estimate so prepared was forwarded by the Block Development Officer- respondent No.5 on 20.09.2025 to respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, Sirmour for according necessary administrative approval and expenditure sanction. Petitioner’s grievance is that no further action was taken upon the aforesaid communication (Annexure P-4). Petitioner’s representation in this regard made vide Annexure P-6 has not resulted into any action. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner would be satisfied in case respondent No.2- Deputy Commissioner is directed to look into the grievance of the petitioner and take appropriate call in accordance with law for sanctioning the administrative approval and expenditure sanction to the preliminary 3 estimate sent to him vide Annexure P-4 dated 20.09.2025 and upon representation of petitioner Annexure P-6. 4. Looking to the pleadings, the documents appended alongwith the writ petition and in the interest of justice, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent No.2 to take appropriate decision in accordance with law on the office communication dated 17.09.2025 (Annexure P-4) as also on the representation of petitioner (Annexure P-6) within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua April 06, 2026 Judge yogesh