Decided On: 09.12.2025 vs State Of H.P. & Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 9655 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Decided On: 09.12.2025 vs State Of H.P. & Others on 9 December, 2025

Author: Ajay Mohan Goel

Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel

                                                              2025:HHC:42498-DB

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                    CWP No.2230 of 2017




                                                                          .
                                    Decided on: 09.12.2025





    Ghimo Devi                                           ... Petitioner
                           Versus
    State of H.P. & others                                             ... Respondents





    Coram
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.




                                               of
    Whether approved for reporting?1Yes
    ____________________________________________________           _
    For the petitioner      :     Mr. Kul Bhushan Khajuria, Advocate.
    For the respondents             :        Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional
                     rt                      Advocate General, for respondents
                                             No.1, 2 and 5-State.
                                             Mr. Avinash Jaryal, Advocate, for

                                             respondent No.3.
                                             Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate,
                                             with Ms. Meenakshi Katoch,
                                             Advocate, for respondent No.4.


    Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia,

prayed for the following relief:-

"1. That the impugned order dated 2.6.2017 may kindly be ordered to be quashed and set aside being void-ab-

initio and illegal and issued in utter violation of the principles of natural justice."

2. The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the

disconnection of the electricity and water connections pursuant to

order dated 02.06.2017 (Annexure P-5). The water and electricity

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

2025:HHC:42498-DB

connections of the petitioner have been disconnected by the

Electricity Board and the Irrigation and Public Health Department,

.

to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, on the basis of the

communication issued to the said Departments by Executive Officer,

Municipal Council, Chamba, H.P.

3. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well

of as learned Senior Counsel for the HPSEB and learned Counsel for

the other respondents, this Court is of the considered view that the rt impugned act of the respondents is not sustainable in the eyes of

law.

4. Record demonstrates that a Notice was issued to the

petitioner under Section 211 of the H.P. Municipal Act, 1994 on

30.12.2011, qua the unauthorized construction raised by him and

this Notice culminated into order dated 28.08.2015 (Annexure P-3),

passed by Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Chamba, H.P., in

terms whereof, after holding the construction carried out by the

petitioner to be illegal and unauthorized, directions were issued to

the petitioner to demolish the same. Record further demonstrates

that this order was challenged by the petitioner before the learned

District Judge, Chamba, H.P., under Section 212 (1) of the Himachal

Pradesh Municipal Act, 1994. In terms of judgment dated

2025:HHC:42498-DB

18.03.2016 (Annexure P-4), learned District Judge set aside the

orders passed by the Executive Officer, Chamba, H.P. and remanded

.

the matter back to the Authority concerned for adjudication afresh.

It has not been disputed before this Court that after the passing of

said order by the learned District Judge, no final order has been

passed by Municipal Council, Chamba, declaring the purported

of construction carried out by the petitioner to be unauthorized.

5. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Municipal rt Council, Chamba, that it stands mentioned in the fresh Show Cause

Notice that unauthorized construction has been carried out by the

petitioner and, therefore, the disconnection of electricity and water is

justified, is liable to be rejected forthwith, for the reason that it are

not the contents of the Notice which will determine as to whether the

construction carried out by the petitioner is unauthorized or not,

but the final order that may be passed by the Authority in the

proceedings.

6. Therefore, obviously for want of any final verdict by the

Authority concerned in terms of the H.P. Municipal Act,1994 that

the construction carried out by the petitioner is unauthorized, after

the remand by learned District Judge, the disconnection of the

electricity and water is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

2025:HHC:42498-DB

7. In light of above observations, this petition is allowed

and impugned order dated 02.06.2017 (Annexure P-5) is quashed

.

and set aside. No further order for restoration of the said facilities

are required to be passed in light of the fact that an interim

protection was granted to the petitioner by this Court on 04.10.2017

itself. It goes without saying that the judgment which has been

of passed by this Court today is not a verdict in favour of the petitioner

that the construction which has been carried out by him is rt authorized construction. All that this judgment hold is that

disconnection of electricity and water cannot be ordered until and

unless the issue of unauthorized construction carried out by the

petitioner attains finality.

8. The petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous

application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly.

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

December 09, 2025 (Rishi)