JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, Judge (Oral) - Having regard to the nature of order this court proposes to pass in the instant proceedings, issuance of notice to the private respondents is dispensed with, to avoid expenses, which they may be burdened with on account of engaging services of a lawyer to defend themselves in this court. 2. By way of present petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India , petitioner has prayed for the following main reliefs: "Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the authorities concerned to take appropriate action towards the construction of shop dully approved by the authority concerned i.e. respondent no. 2, being made by the petitioner in the light of project report and spot map and may kindly be directed the authorities to take strict action against respondent no. 5 to 7. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding he police authority i.e. respondent no. 4 to provide assistance and peaceful environment to the petitioner towards construction of the shop over the allotted land by Municipal Council, Paonta Sahib." 3. In nutshell, grouse of the petitioner, as emerges from the pleadings as well as documents adduced on record is that despite there being a specific permission granted in his favour by the Municipal Council, Paonta Sahib, he is not being allowed to carry out the construction on the spot. 4. Careful perusal of the annexure P-1, i.e. copy of judgment and decree dated 24.9.2018 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, which has attained finality, as has been fairly stated by the learned counsel representing the respondent No. 2, clearly suggests that suit for mandatory injunction i.e. Civil Suit No. 200/1 of 2014, having been filed by the petitioner against respondent No.2 was decreed vide aforesaid judgment and decree, whereby respondent No.2 came to be directed to allot shop to the petitioner. In compliance to the aforesaid judgment and decree, Executive Committee of Municipal Council, Paonta Sahib, vide Resolution No. 9, dated 12.11.2018, Annexure P-2, unanimously decided to allot shop in favour of the petitioner on self-finance basis. Vide aforesaid Resolution, Executive Committee, while granting permission to the petitioner to construct shop under self-finance scheme, in front of the Masjid, directed the Junior Engineer of the Council to prepare estimates and map. Vide aforesaid Resolution, Executive Committee, while granting permission to the petitioner to construct shop under self-finance scheme, in front of the Masjid, directed the Junior Engineer of the Council to prepare estimates and map. The Executive Committee, vide aforesaid Resolution further directed the petitioner to carry out construction in terms of the estimates and map prepared by Junior Engineer and thereafter report the factum with regard to completion of construction to it, so that amount spent by him towards construction of shop is ordered to be adjusted towards the rent of the shop, which was to be fixed subsequently. Vide annexure P-3, letter dated 24.11.2018, Junior Engineer, Municipal Council, Paonta Sahib, communicated to the petitioner that the Executive Committee of the Municipal Council, Paonta Sahib, vide Resolution No. 9 dated 12.11.2018 has resolved to grant shop to him under self-finance scheme in front of the Masjid at Paonta Sahib. Vide communication dated 28.11.2018, (Annexure P-4), petitioner informed the Executive Committee, Municipal Council, Paonta Sahib that he has got the spot inspected from the Junior Engineer in terms of communication dated 24.11.2018 and he shall be raising construction on the spot in terms of estimates supplied to him by the Junior Engineer i.e. Annexure P-5. 5. Petitioner has alleged that subsequent to grant of permission in his favour, respondents No. 6 and 7 are creating hindrances and obstructions in the construction of shop in connivance with the officials of respondent No.2, as such, appropriate directions be issued to the authorities concerned to provide adequate security, to enable petitioner to carry out construction on the spot. 6. Mr. Rahul Singh Verma, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while inviting attention of this court to communication dated 18.1.2019, addressed to the Station House Officer, Paonta Sahib (Annexure P-6), contended that despite there being specific complaint lodged with the police, no action is being taken against the above named respondents, as such, petitioner is suffering huge losses. 7. Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, learned counsel representing respondent No.2, specifically denied the connivance, if any, of the officials of Municipal Council, Paonta Sahib and contended that once vide Resolution dated 12.11.2018, it has been already decided by the Council to allot shop to the petitioner, there is no question, if any, of raising objections by the Municipal Council. 7. Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, learned counsel representing respondent No.2, specifically denied the connivance, if any, of the officials of Municipal Council, Paonta Sahib and contended that once vide Resolution dated 12.11.2018, it has been already decided by the Council to allot shop to the petitioner, there is no question, if any, of raising objections by the Municipal Council. He further contended that the petitioner is bound to raise construction on the spot, strictly in terms of project estimates and map prepared by the Junior Engineer, as has been specifically mentioned in Resolution No. 9, dated 12.11.2018 (Annexure P-2). 8. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, having perused Annexure P-6, communication addressed to the Station House Officer, fairly stated that appropriate action shall be taken against erring persons, in accordance with law. 9. Consequently, in view of above, this court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and accordingly same is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.4, Station House Officer, Paonta Sahib, to take appropriate action in accordance with law, on the complaint, having been filed by the petitioner, Annexure P-6, forthwith. Needless to say, Municipal Council, Paonta Sahib, shall also ensure that petitioner is not obstructed/stopped by its officials or Ward Members, if construction is being raised by the petitioner strictly in conformity with the map and estimates prepared by the authority of the Municipal Council i.e. Junior Engineer. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General undertakes to covey this order to the Station House Officer concerned, for necessary compliance. However, before taking any action in the matter, authority concerned shall afford due opportunity of hearing to both the parties Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. Copy dasti