Nathu Ram Vs State of Hp and Others

2. In view of grievance raised, pleadings in the petition and the order being passed hereinafter, reply to the writ petition is not required to be called from the respondents no. 1 to 5. Notice is also not required to be issued to respondents No. 6 to 12. Matter has been accordingly heard at this stage.

¶12

3. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive relief:-

¶13

“a). To pass an appropriate writ, order or directions to the respondents No. 1 to 6 to take appropriate action against the respondent Nos. 7 to 12 for mis-

¶14

1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

¶15

2

¶16

utilized the government fund and utilized the government fund illegally on the construction of path on the land of the petitioner even stay order has already been passed by the Court.”

¶17

4. By way of his main grievance, the petitioner alleges that private respondents No. 6-12 have illegally & unauthorizedly constructed path over his land; It is pleaded case of the petitioner that in this regard, he has already taken recourse to appropriate remedy in accordance with law by instituting civil suit before the Court of Learned Civil Judge, Court No.IV, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. wherein stay has been granted in his favour. In case, stay/interim order has been violated, as alleged by the petitioner, it is for him to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law. The interim order cannot be implemented by instituting writ petition.

¶18

The other grievance of the petitioner relates to allegations of mis-utilization of government fund by the respondents by constructing path on his land. The writ file reflects and is also petitioner’s pleaded case that petitioner has already moved representations to the concerned authorities, his representations are being looked into by the competent authorities. Qua this allegation of the petitioner, it would be appropriate to issue directions to respondents No.4-5/competent

¶19

3

¶20

authority to make earnest efforts for taking action upon petitioner’s representations appended with the writ petition and to take them to their logical conclusion within eight weeks. Ordered accordingly.

¶21

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

¶22

Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 02, 2026 Judge yogesh

Nathu Ram v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nathu Ram v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunita Devi Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Another

Pradeep Kumar Vs Ashish Kumar Kohli

Gopal Singh Verma Vs State of Hp and Another

M/S Milestone Gears Pvt. Ltd. Unit-Viii Vs Amar Singh Bhatia and Another

Yagya Dev and Others Vs National Hydro-Electric Power Corporation Ltd. and Others

Aman Bibi Vs the State of Hp and Others