IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5568 of 2023 Decided on: 07.12.2023 Raju Ram f …Petitioner.

Versus The State of H.P. & others … Respondents.

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

Whether approved for reporting?

____________________u_________________________________

For the petitioner: Mr. Arun Sehgal, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur, Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate Generals, Rohit Sharma, Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer, for respondents No.1 to 3-State.

h Ms. Ritta Goswami, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Komal Chaudhary, Advocate, for g respondents No.4 and 5.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the Respondents No.1 to 3 to implement their own orders/notices dated 24.11.2022 (Annexure P-6) & dated 04.05.2023 (Annexure P-8) and remove the Aerial Ropeway Span which the Respondent No. 4 & 5 have laid/installed through the land of the petitioner comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 225/262, Kitas 17, land measuring 03-00-00 Bighas as per his 1/9th share, out of total land measuring 11-05-00 bighas situated in Village Katar, Phati Palehi, Sub-Tehsil Nither, District Kullu, H.P., especially over Khasra No. 1240 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

(Sewa Aage), land measuring 00-06-00 bigha over which the petitioner has constructed hisH residential house, in order to prevent the high risk to life and property of the petitioner and his family, in the interest of justice and fair play. o (ii) That the Respondent No. 4 & 5 may kindly be burdened with heavy cost for unnecessary dragging the petitioner to urnwanted litigation.”

2. A perusual of the petition as well as the stand of the private responodents demonstrates that on the same issue the petitioner has already filed a Civil Suit against the private respondents which is pending adjudication before the Court of lhearned Civil Judge, Ani, District Kullu, H.P.

g3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the private respondents has submitted that filing of the present petition in the backdrop of the petitioner already having filed a Civil Suit on the same cause is nothing but an abuse of the process of law.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that filing of the Civil Suit cannot be a bar as far as maintainability of this petition is concerned, because herein the petitioner is seeking a direction against the State to implement the orders which have been passed by the Authorities.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the present petition is not maintainable, for the reason that the, issue subject matter of the present petition, is already subjudice in the Civil Suit and the relief being prayed for by way of this petition, may be in the garb of a mandamus, is same and similar to the reliefs being claimed in the Civil Suit.

6. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as not maintainable, but with liberty to the petitioner to take up the matter in the pending Civil Suit. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed do. u (Ajay Mohan Goel)

Judge December 07, 2023 (R ishi)