IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO Nos.332 and 342 of 2008. Date of decision: 21.04.2009. 1. CMPMO No.332 of 2008. Mukesh Agnihotri …Petitioner Versus H.P. Vidhan Sabha & Others …Respondents 2. CMPMO No.342 of 2008. Subhash Chand Manglet …Petitioner Versus H.P. Vidhan Sabha & Others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioner(s): Mr.Baldev Singh, Advocate. For Respondent No.1: Mr.Ashok Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent No.2: Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud,J.(Oral) Both these petitions are being disposed of by a common order as common point of law is involved. The grievance of the petitioner(s) in these petitions is that the proceedings under the Himachal Pradesh Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971, are illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India on the grounds as pleaded and urged. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 A number of grounds have been urged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner(s) in support of his contention on the legality of the proceedings initiated against the petitioner(s). He urges that the entire proceedings are void ab initio on the grounds and reasons as set out and pleaded in these petitions and that proceedings initiated are an abuse of the process of law and deserve to be quashed and set aside. The proceedings are still at their initial stage. It will be open to the petitioner(s) herein to take all such grounds in opposition to the petition(s) for eviction as instituted against them and to show/demonstrate that the proceedings are not maintainable in law or on facts urged amongst other grounds. I do not intend to interfere at this stage. It is clarified that in case of an adverse order being passed against the petitioner(s) it shall not be implemented for a period of eight weeks in order to enable the petitioner(s) to avail other remedy(s) in accordance with law. These petitions are accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. This order shall not be construed as having been pronounced on the merits of the claim of the petitioner(s) or the stand adopted by the respondents. The statutory authority shall proceed in accordance with law totally uninfluenced by the disposal of these petitions. All 3 miscellaneous applications are disposed of. All interim orders are vacated. April 21, 2009 (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.