Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/18810/2026 on 16 October 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.18810 of 2026
Date of Decision: 16.10.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Rajneesh Thakur
……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok K. Thakur, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Precisely, the case of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Ashok K. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that despite repeated requests, as well as resolution passed by Gram Panchayat, Chanour, dated 14.02.2023, no steps have been taken by the district administration to lay crate wire/crate wall, as a consequence of which there is an imminent threat to the life and property of the persons residing alongside khad passing through Ward No. 5, Chanour. He states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, to consider and decide the representations of the petitioner as contained in Annexure P-12 in a time-bound manner.
2. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant proceedings, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply on behalf of respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Kahol fairly states that decision, if not already taken upon the representations detailed hereinabove, shall be taken expeditiously.
3. After having carefully perused averments contained in the petition as well as documents annexed therewith, this Court finds that Gram Panchayat, Chanour, has repeatedly passed resolutions for construction of a crate wall over Khasra No. 1627, so that no damage is caused to the persons residing near the khad passing through Khasra No. 1627, as well as adjoining Khasra numbers, and flood water may not enter the adjoining areas. Though Block Development Officer, after having visited the spot, sent a letter to respondent No. 5 regarding the inquiry conducted by the Social Education and Block Planning Officer on 17.12.2024 and thereafter the District Panchayat Officer also assured the petitioner and other residents that crate wire would be laid, but fact remains that nothing has been done on the spot and as such, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.
4. Since competent authority is already seized of the matter, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the same with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner,
Kangra at Dharamshala, to ensure that representations of the petitioner as contained in Annexure P-12 are decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks.
5. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as other stakeholders and ensure that a crate wall is laid down in Ward No. 5, Sikh Basti, Chanour, so that no damage is caused to the life and property of the persons residing in the area concerned. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
October 16, 2026
(Sandeep Sharma), (sunil)
Judge