Indima Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

The present public interest litigation has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the communication dated 10.02.2025 (Annexure P-10), whereby the construction of the link road from Jiskoon to Matyantu has been ordered to be constructed directly instead of via Shalawan Khad in terms of the approval accorded by the Hon’ble Chief Minister vide his letter dated 23.11.2024 (Annexure P-11). Accordingly, prayer

¶11

has been made to direct the respondents to construct the

¶12

1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶13

-2-2026:HHC:30057

¶14

road in terms of the already prepared line plan and the alignment report.

¶15

The petitioner is stated to be elected as BDC Member of the concerned area and a public spirited person. On the basis of the joint site inspection which had been conducted and site inspection report has been prepared duly signed by the officials and they had observed that the land for construction of the aforesaid land i.e. Jiskoon to Matiyantu Ambulance road had been gifted by the residents of the area as per gift deed without claiming any compensation or any benefit therefrom. Thus the claim had been made for construction of road via Shalawan Khad.

¶16

The stand of the State is that construction of the road on the old alignment is going to cause huge losses to the environment and is also putting a financial burden on state exchequer and is not feasible, technically as well as financially and it is incorrect that the new alignment passes through a large chunk of forest land.

¶17

In the reply filed by the State, it is specifically mentioned that the new alignment from Jiskoon to Matyantu was found to be shorter one, more feasible and

¶18

-3-2026:HHC:30057

¶19

sustainable involving lesser forest land, cutting of fewer trees and providing access to multiple public utilities such as schools, dispensaries, Panchayat Ghar and temples. The selection of the alignment was undertaken after detailed joint site inspections involving officials from the Forest, Revenue and PWD Departments. The main objective was to provide motorable access to Matyantu village.

¶20

It is specifically mentioned that during the heavy monsoon seasons of 2023 and again in 2025, the earlier proposed alignment located on the Shelwan Khad side exhibited continuous slope movement, soil loosening and progressive sinking of the hill strata and therefore due to the change in the alignment in the rock strata in that section, which was fractured, highly weathered and geologically unstable, thereby was posing a serious risk to road users, future maintenance and public safety. As per PWD standard specifications and Hill Road Engineering Guidelines applicable in the State, construction was not recommended on actively sliding or creep-affected slopes, as it leads to recurring restoration liabilities and endangers life and property.

¶21

-4-2026:HHC:30057

¶22

The alternate alignment via Jiskoon to Matyantu was selected as it is situated on comparatively stable hill formation and the length of new alignment is lesser by about 600 meters from the old alignment. The line plan of the sites is also attached as Annexure R-1. The Senior Secondary School Jiskoon is infact coming on the new alignment prepared by the respondent and not on the side of the earlier alignment and there is no school on the old alignment. The new alignment not only covers the Sr. Secondary School Jiskoon, but other public utility offices like Public Health Centre and a lot of habitations. The length of the road from Shelwan Khud side is about 1500 meters, whereas, from the School side to Matyantu is about 950 meters and whereas there was no habitation on the old alignment.

¶23

Replication was also filed reiterating the earlier position, as such.

¶24

Keeping in view the fact that it is Public Interest Litigation and the experts, as such, have opined that new alignment of the road will be suitable then the old alignment and also found to be shorter, as such benefiting the schools and other health facilities, we are of the considered opinion

¶25

-5-2026:HHC:30057

¶26

that there would be chances that the public interest litigation is only based upon the private land of the petitioner being on the other side as such, and in such circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present litigation. It is settled principle that public interest litigation should not involve elements of private interest and it is also not permissible for the Courts to substitute the opinion of the experts by their office.

¶27

In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion the petition itself is not maintainable. Resultantly, we find no plausible reason to entertain the same, as such and the same is dismissed.

¶28

( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice

¶29

July 20, 2026 (Bipin Chander Negi) (meera) Judge

Indima Devi v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indima Devi v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Hp through Additional Chief Secretary (Forest) Vs Bir Singh

Sanghmitra Sadhu Vs Union of India and Another

Ram Saroop Vs Mc Shimla

State of Hp and Ors. Vs Sunil Kumar

Yashpal Sharma Vs the State of Hp and Another

Union of India and Anr. Vs Vikas Thakur