IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6567 of 2026 Decided on: 4th May, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vinod Arora and another …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Tarun K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. In view of the grievance raised by the petitioners, the case projected and the order being passed hereinafter, reply to the writ petition is not required to be called for from the respondents. The matter has accordingly been heard at this stage. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2. Respondents issued notice to the petitioners under Rule 4(1)(b) of the Himachal Pradesh Road Infrastructure Protection Rules, 2004 for their having allegedly contravened the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Road Infrastructure Protection Act, 2002. Notice was issued to petitioner’s father-late Sh. Banbari Lal on 02.08.2024 (Annexure P-1). Petitioners furnished reply to the aforesaid notice on 21.11.2024. In this writ petition filed on 29.04.2026, petitioners essentially seek quashing and setting aside of notice dated 02.08.2024. 3. Learned Deputy Advocate General, on the basis of instructions imparted to her, submitted that Annexure P-1, dated 02.08.2024, is only a notice, to which the petitioners have already filed reply and no order thereupon has yet been passed, or in other words, notice has not been conclusively decided as yet. 4. In view of above submissions, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents/competent authority to take a call on the aforesaid notice in accordance with law by inter alia looking into the reply submitted by the petitioners. The decision in this regard be taken within four weeks from today. The order so passed, be communicated to the petitioners. 3 The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua May 04, 2026 Judge Mukesh