IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1548 of 2007 Date of decision : December 17, 2010 Rawan alias Birbal …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 5. Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate, for respondent No.6. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by realignment of a proposed road from Ghumarwin to Jogindernagar. Initial survey was conducted in the year 2005 and according to that survey, copy Annexure P-4, road was aligned in such a fashion, near the shop of the petitioner, that only one corner of his shop was to fall in the alignment and major portion of it was to remain intact, while the shop of respondent No.6, in its entirety, was falling in the alignment. In 2007, another alignment, copy Annexure P-5, has been done. According to this alignment, a little less than half of the shop of the petitioner would fall in the alignment, while shop of respondent No.6 goes completely out of that alignment. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… Petitioner’s allegation is that realignment has been ordered to save the shop of respondent No.6 from falling in the alignment. 3. Respondents have denied, in their reply, that the realignment has been done to help respondent No.6, as alleged in the petition. According to them, in case the earlier alignment is stuck to, houses and built-up properties of four-five persons would be involved and that with a view to saving so many properties alignment has been changed and this changed alignment would though lead to utilization of slightly larger a portion of the shop of the petitioner, but it will save many other properties. 4. Copies of maps, showing the two alignments, have been filed by the petitioner as Annexures P-4 and P-5. A bare look at the maps shows that according to both the alignments, a portion of the shop of the petitioner would be utilized in the construction of the road. In the first alignment, the portion is shown to be about 1/5th of the total area, while in the second alignment, it is a little less than half. In view of the abovestated position, present writ petition is dismissed. December 17, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J