IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 8591 of 2010 Date of decision: 01.07.2011 Tilak Raj …. Petitioner Versus Municipal Corporation, Shimla and others ... Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Shrawan Dogra and Mr. Umesh Kanwar, Advocates, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Navlesh Verma, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 to 7. Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No. 8 and 9. V.K. Ahuja, J. (Oral): The present petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16.11.2010 (Annexure PE), passed by the Principal Secretary (Urban Development), to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, in Revision Petition No. 1 of 2010 titled Tilak Raj Vs. Municipal Corporation, Shimla and others, filed by the petitioner. 2. A notice of the petition was issued to the respondents, who filed their replies. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 4. The revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the observations of the learned Principal Secretary that the petitioner has the right to appeal such matters under the Building Bye- Laws and should exercise this right and the revision petition is not maintainable. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he is ready to file an appeal as observed by the learned Principal Secretary before the Divisional Commissioner against the order of the Commissioner, but the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there are findings that the revision petition is not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner and those findings may be set aside. The petitioner is at liberty to file an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner against the order of the Municipal Commissioner and the period taken by him in pursuing the revision petition before the Principal Secretary as well as by pursuing the remedy before this Court shall be condoned at the time of computation of limitation by the Divisional Commissioner. Insofar as the question is concerned whether the revision in question is not maintainable at the instance of a private party and those powers cannot be permitted under Section 403 of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1994, that question is left open to be decided in appropriate proceedings as and when this plea is raised. 5. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of accordingly, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Interim order passed, if any, stands vacated. ( V.K. Ahuja ), July 01, 2011 Judge (BSS) 3