1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPIL No.21 of 2026 Date of Decision : 20.03.2026 Madan Lal …… Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …… Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Umesh Kanwar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.P. Singh, Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) The present Public Interest Litigation has been preferred by the petitioner seeking following substantive relief(s):- “A. Ld. Ombudsman (respondent no.4) may be directed to refer the matter to the competent authority to sanction criminal prosecution against the guilty persons, terms of instruction 13.7 of MGNERGA Act Guidelines and criminal prosecution be recommended against respondent no. 7 to 18. B. Recovery of amount be made along with interest @ 18% p.m. from respondent no. 7 to 18. C. Respondent No.3 may be directed to recommend/initiate departmental disciplinary inquiry against respondent No. 7 to 13. D. Inquiry may be conducted in the matter by any independent agency. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 E. Respondent No. 6 may be directed produce on record with respect to the inquiry conducted by him in terms of letter dated 16.10.2024 issued by the Block Development Officer cum Program Officer MGNREGA Ghumarwin District Bilaspur HP. F. Impose exemplary Cost of Rs. 10 lacs on the respondent No.14 and Cost of Rs. 10 lacs on other respondents. G. Records of the case be called and any other relief as may be deemed just/ proper may also be granted in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken us to the order dated 29.01.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority, in an appeal filed by him, wherein, the Authority had come to the considered opinion that an amount of Rs.15,600/- is required to be recovered from respondents No.4 to 12, therein, in equal parts while setting aside the penalty imposed upon the appellant. 3. It is not disputed that the petitioner has also filed a representation to the Secretary (Rural Development ) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh (respondent No.1), wherein, he has highlighted the illegality of receiving payments for the work which was never executed on the site and there was no land as such, on the basis of which, payments have been made and in such circumstances has prayed for various reliefs, which are similar to what has been claimed herein. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that since the decision making is still to be done on the said representation and prima facie, a case has been projected, it would be appropriate if respondent No.1 takes a decision on the said representation within a fixed period of time. 3 4. Resultantly, we dispose of the present Public Interest Litigation with a direction to respondent No.1 to take a decision on the said representation dated 12.12.2025 (Annexure P-20). In case, any adverse order has to be passed against the private respondents, it would be appropriate that the said respondent also issues notice to them so that principles of natural justice are duly complied with. 5. Needless to say, that the writ petitioner shall also be associated in the said proceedings and the same be concluded within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice ( Bipin Chander Negi) March 20, 2026 (KS) Judge