IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 13283/2026 Decided on: 06.08.2026 Virender Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .....Respondents ………………………………………………………………………………… Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Raju Ram Rahi, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 5. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs: - “a) Because the respondents have acted arbitrarily, illegaly and in violation of principles of natural justice by diverting drainage and waster water into the petitioner’s private agricultural land. b) Because the respondents have failed to discharge their statutory duties to maintain public infrastructure in a lawful and scientific manner. c) Because the illegal discharge of wastewater into the petitioner’s land infringes the petitioner’s right to livelihood and clean environment guaranteed under Article 21 of the constitution of India.” 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Petitioner's allegations are that the respondents have diverted public drainage and wastewater into his agricultural land, thereby causing continuous damage to his crops, soil fertility and property. Though a legal notice was issued to the respondents on 17.11.2025 (Annexure P/1), the needful was not carried out, hence, the petition. Annexure P/2 is the reply furnished by respondent No.5- concerned Block Development Officer to the legal notice issued by the petitioner. The stand of the respondents on facts in the said reply is that:- Construction of the path has not been completed up to the agricultural field of the petitioner; It has been completed only up to the residential house of one Sh. Karnail Singh, therefore, allegations of any damage having been caused are denied. According to the respondents, since the construction of the path has not been completed, there was no question of causing any damage to the agricultural field of the petitioner by any action or inaction of the respondents. The reply further states that it is the land/house owners adjoining to the residential house of the petitioner, who have constructed soak pits adjacent to their residential houses and all wastewater from their bathrooms and kitchens is being discharged into the soak pits, which may be causing inconvenience to the petitioner. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner intends to avail alternate appropriate remedy available to him, in accordance with law, for the redressal of his 3 grievances before the appropriate forum, therefore, the petitioner be permitted to withdraw the instant petition. In view of above, the present petition is disposed of as withdrawn. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 6th August, 2026 (rohit)