Jagar Nath vs State Of H.P & Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 507 HP

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
                              SHIMLA

                                                          CWP No. 345 of 2021




                                                                                .
                                                          Decided on 8.1.2021





    Jagar Nath                                                                       Petitioner.
                                         Versus





    State of H.P & others                                                           Respondents.
    Coram:
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting?1

    For the Petitioner:
    For the Respondents:
                           r                 to  Mr. Subhash Mohan Snehi, Advocate.
                                                  Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Addl. A.G.

                                                  (Through video conferencing).


    Sureshwar Thakur, Judge (oral)

The writ petitioner claims a mandamus becoming

pronounced, upon, the respondents, for, theirs carrying out requisite

repairs to the house, and, to, the courtyards, of, the writ petitioner,

wheretowhich, damages becomes caused, purportedly in sequel to

construction activity, becoming undertaken by the PWD authorities.

2. However, for establishing the afore inter-se connection

inter-se the afore damages to the house and courtyard, of, the

petitioner, vis-a-vis, the construction activity undertaken by

HPPWD, this Court is not the appropriate forum, rather when the

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

...2...

afore is a disputed question of fact, whereon contentious issues are

.

amenable, to be raised, and, thereafter evidence is to be adduced

thereon(s) by the respective parties, rather before the Civil Court

concerned, thereupon, the recoursing of the extant remedy, is a

grossly mis-recoursed remedy, and, hence the writ petition, is,

dismissed, as, not maintainable before this Court. However, liberty

is reserved to the writ petitioner, to, endeavor to seek relief, through

his instituting a Civil Suit before the Civil Court concerned. All

pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.

( Sureshwar Thakur),

Judge.

    8th January, 2021                    ( Chander Bhusan Barowalia ),
    (priti)                                              Judge.