IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6369 of 2010 Date of decision : October 20, 2011 M/s Jai Prakash Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. and others …Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Mr. K.D. Shridhar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3 & 6. Mr. Tarlok Jamwal, Advocate, for respondents No.4 and 5. Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.7. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Petitioners are tenants in a building, constructed by respondent No.7 Smt. Jyoti Banga. A hospital has been set up, by the petitioners, in the aforesaid building, which is situated in Kullu town. Electricity supply connection was available in the building, when it was leased out to the petitioners, by respondent No.7, in February, 2010, vide lease deed dated 9th February, 2010, Annexure P-2. On 25th September, 2010, respondent No.6 Assistant Town Planner, Kullu, served notice, under Section 39-B of the Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… H.P. Town and Country Planning Act, 1977, upon respondent No.7, the land-lady of the petitioners, calling upon her to show cause why unauthorized development of the building, as pointed out in the aforesaid notice, be not directed to be sealed, under Section 39-B of the Act. A copy of this notice, which is Annexure R/5-xv, was sent to the Executive Engineer, H.P. State Electricity Board, Kullu, with a request to disconnect the electricity supply, immediately, to the entire premises of respondent No.7. On the basis of this notice, Executive Engineer, H.P. State Electricity Board, impleaded as respondent No.5, herein, disconnected supply of electricity to the building, occupied by the petitioners, as tenants, under respondent No.7. 2. Petitioners, who have been running hospital in the building, felt aggrieved by the action of respondent No.5, as the disconnection of electricity supply created serious hurdle in running their hospital. So, they filed the present petition, seeking issuance of following directions: 1. Respondents be directed to supply electricity to the hospital, being run by the petitioners-company. 2. Action of the respondents, disconnecting the electricity supply to petitioners’ hospital, be quashed. …3… 3. Separate replies have been filed, on behalf of the functionaries of Town and Country Planning as also the State Electricity Board. 4. In the reply filed by the Town and Country Planning functionaries, it is stated that the building has been constructed by respondent No.7, in violation of the approved plan and because of that notice Annexure R/5- xv had been served upon the said respondent. Plea raised by the State Electricity Board and its Executive Engineer, impleaded as respondents No.4 & 5, respectively, is that they have disconnected the supply of electricity, in compliance with the direction of the functionaries of Town and Country Planning. It is also their plea that regular electricity connection had not been sanctioned for the building, in question, and that only temporary connections were there. 5. Deputy Commissioner, Kullu, who too has been impleaded as party (respondent No.3), in his reply, has stated that respondent No.7 has made encroachment on a portion of Government land, while constructing the building, in question, and that it is proposed to evict respondent No.7 from that portion of the site of the building, which belongs to the Government. …4… 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 7. Main submission made on behalf of the petitioners is that they being the occupiers of the building have the right to oppose the proposed action of the Town and Country Planning authorities, in view of proviso to Section 39(1) of the H.P. Town and Country Planning Act, 1977. Section 39(1) of the Act, together with its proviso, reads as follows: “39. (1) Where any development has been carried out as indicated in section 38 the Director may, within ten years of such development serve on the owner a notice requiring him, within fifteen days from the date of service of the notice.- (a) in cases specified in clause (a) or (c) of section 38 to restore the land to its condition existing before the said development took place; (b) in cases specified in clause (b) or (d) of section 38 to secure compliance with the conditions or with the permission as modified: Provided that where the notice requires the discontinuance of any use of land, it shall be served on the occupier also.” 8. Admittedly, the petitioners are occupiers of the building, they having taken it on lease from respondent No.7 and, therefore, they are the occupiers. So, in case Town and Country Planning authorities want that the petitioners should discontinue use of the …5… building, in question, they should issue a notice to them, as has been done in the case of owner. 9. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the electricity connection was released, for running hospital in the building. Learned counsel, representing the State Electricity Board, submits that only temporary connections had been released, in the name of respondent No.7, for constructing the building and that permanent connection had not been released for any purpose, leave alone for running a hospital in the building. 10. There is no material on record, showing that permanent connection had been released for running hospital in the building. 11. As a result of the above discussion, present writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to respondents No.1, 2 and 6 that in case they want the use of the building to be discontinued by the petitioners, notice, in accordance with the proviso to Section 39(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1977, shall be issued upon them, they being the occupiers of the building. Pending applications also stand disposed of. October 20, 2011(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J