IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP. No. 2097 of 2008. Date of Decision: 12.8.2010. _______________________________________________ Vidya Sharma ….Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. and others. ….Respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioner : Mr.Dalip K. Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent. : Mr.Ramesh Thakur, Addl. Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). The petitioner is aggrieved by the in action of the respondent-State in not implementing the Notification Anexure:P-1. It is undisputed before me that Notification dated 20th August, 2005 (Annexure:P-1) was issued by the State Government pursuant to the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). It recites that pursuant to the provisions of Section 2 Clause 46, Section 3 Sub-sections (1) and (2) of the ‘Act’, as also Section 4(1), Gram Sabhas as detailed therein have Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? yes. 2 been created/constituted. The petitioner is from Dadoghi Gram Sabha. Reply to the petition is that the new Gram Sabha has been constituted by this Notification and funds were provided for the construction of Panchayat Ghar at the headquarters at Dadoghi only as notified by the said notification. It states that after the formation of new Panchayat, by a resolution dated 27.6.2007, a proposal was made that the Panchayat Ghar be sanctioned at Bag-ka- Jubber. I do not find that this resolution has been placed on the record by the parties. This has been submitted in reply on the basis of an affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Solan. Surely, even if it is admitted that such a resolution has been passed it cannot be adjudicated in this petition that the headquarters could be shifted as the resolution of the Panchayat should have been placed on the record so that this court could judge its legality. In these circumstances, merely beyond pleading there is nothing on the record to establish that such a resolution was, in fact, passed. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this move has been initited because one of the respondent, who was the Pradhan of the Gram Sabha, Sh. Kameshwar Sharma was motivated to shift this headquarter on some purported illegal construction having been made by him. 3 This Court has not adjudicated on that aspect of the matter. It will be for the Government to look into this fact as to whether said Sh. Kameshwar Sharma has, in fact, made some illegal construction/encroachment etc. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is allowed. A direction is issued to the State Government that Notification (Annexure:P-1) be implemented in its letter and spirit. Writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. CMP.No.6211 of 2010. Infructuous in view of the decision in the writ petition. The grievance of the petitioner that illegal construction has been made can be decided by the Govt. in an appropriate proceedings. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. August 12, 2010(R)