HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWPIL No. 13/2011 Date of Decision: September 5, 2011 Court on its own motion ……. Petitioner Versus State of H. P. & Ors. …….. Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. For the petitioner : Ms. Akshi Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents/ : Mr. R. K. Bawa, A.G. with State Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl.A.G. and Mr. J. K. Verma, Dy. A.G. Sanjay Karol, J. (oral) This petition was entertained on the basis of the letter written to Hon’ble the Chief Justice of this Court. Essentially, it is the grievance of the petitioner that there is threat and danger to his life and property from the co-villagers. Also members of the village have socially boycotted him and his family. Services of his wife, who has been working as a Sweeper, also stand terminated. 2. On 18.4.2011, Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, Kinnaur at Rampur was asked to look into the matter and submit his report. The same stands placed before this Court. Also the Deputy Commissioner, Kinnaur has filed his personal affidavit. Perusal of the affidavit as also the report reveals that there is no threat to the life or property of the petitioner or any of his family members. 3. Deputy Commissioner had asked the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kalpa at Reckong Peo to inquire into the matter and as per the inquiry 2 conducted by a Committee comprising of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dy. Superintendent of Police, Kinnaur and District Welfare Officer, Kinnaur, petitioner already stands issued a Job Card under MNREGA. He is also availing all government facilities in the village without any fear. Even as per the report of the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, there is no social boycott. Contrary to the averments made by the petitioner, his wife is still working as a Safai Karamchari at Primary Health Centre, Rakchham. However some action, purely on administrative grounds is contemplated against her. 4. It appears that there is some dispute with regard to the local deity on account of which petitioner has not been associated with the affairs of the deity. Efforts made by the authorities to even reconcile the same did not bear any result for the reason that petitioner refused to join proceedings for reconciliation. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, no other and further orders are required to be passed in the petition save and except that as and when there is any threat to the life or property of the petitioner, it is always open for him to approach the statutory Authorities for appropriate action in accordance with law. 6. With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. ( Justice Sanjay Karol ), Judge. September 5, 2011 (rana)