JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has primarily prayed for the following reliefs:- “i) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued and impugned order dated 14.7.2022 may kindly be quashed and set aside. ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued and respondent state may kindly b directed to provide the transportation work to the members of the petitioner society in respondent no. 4 (ACC cement Plant at Barmana) and allow them to ply their trucks and multi Axel Trucks in the respondent no. 4 to transport the material from the Ambuja Cement Plant Barmana as per their quota/share and provisions of Rehabilitation and Resettlement plan, 2009 implemented in its letter and spirit. 2. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having carefully gone through the pleadings as well as the documents appended therewith, which include the impugned order as well as the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Plan, 2009, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as is being prayed for. 3. In terms of relief No. 2, the petitioner is seeking a mandamus against the respondent-State to the effect that the State be directed to provide transportation work to the members of the petitioner-Society in respondent No. 4 (ACC Cement Plant at Barmana) as per their quota and share and as per provisions of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Plan, 2009. 4. The Rehabilitation and Resettlement Plan, 2009, is appended with the petition as Annexure P-3. Opening three lines of this particular notification read as under:- “REVENUE DEPARTMENT (PROJECT CELL) NOTIFICATION Shimla-2 the 11th June, 2009 No. Rev(PC)A(9)-2/2007-The governor, Himachal Pradesh is please to notify the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Plan, 2009 as per annexure-A, for resettlement and rehabilitation of families affected by Cement Plants to be established in Himachal Pradesh and shall come into force with immediate effect. By Order, Sd/- Additional Chief Secretary-cum- Financial Commissioner.” 5. Thus, the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Plan, 2009, is for resettlement and rehabilitation of families affected by Cement Plants “to be established in Himachal Pradesh”. Respondent No. 4 is in existence since 1984, as is evident from the replies filed by the respondents. This fact could not be disputed by the petitioner during the course of hearing of this petition. 6. Thus, the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Plan, 2009, is for resettlement and rehabilitation of families affected by Cement Plants “to be established in Himachal Pradesh”. Respondent No. 4 is in existence since 1984, as is evident from the replies filed by the respondents. This fact could not be disputed by the petitioner during the course of hearing of this petition. 6. That being the case, this Court fails to understand as to how members of the petitioner-Society are entitled for the benefits envisaged under the provisions of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Plan, 2009, which was not only prospective in nature but was with regard to the Cement Plants which were to be established in Himachal Pradesh and not relatable to Cement Plants already in existence. 7. Coming to relief No. 1, in terms thereof, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of order dated 14.07.2022 (Annexure P-9), vide which the representation of the petitioners to provide work of Cement/ Clinker manufactured by ACC Cement Plant, Barmana, has been rejected by Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, by assigning the following reasons:- “8) That as per the report submitted by BDTS there are total 2032 trucks registered with BDTS and out of which 478 trucks pertain to those members/persons which are either outstees of ACC Cement factory Barmana or affected persons of five Gram Panchayats, adjoining to ACC Cement factory Barmana and the same fact has not been contradicted at any time, which clearly implies that oustees/affected families/ persons of ACC Cement Factory, Barmana are associated in the transportation work of ACC Cement Factory. Since there is no enhancement in the production of cement since 2006 and therefore, it can be construed that volume of work has not increased. The Hon'ble High Court has also observed on the basis of report of Committee that additional trucks may be added by the in case volume of work increases and therefore the demand of the representationist society in at this particular juncture does not invite any intervention. Hence, in view of the above stated points/facts, it is hereby informed that the undersigned is not a competent authority to issue any directions/ orders with respect to distribution of transportation work of cement/ clinker of ACC cement factory Barmana under any provisions of law/ rules. Hence, in view of the above stated points/facts, it is hereby informed that the undersigned is not a competent authority to issue any directions/ orders with respect to distribution of transportation work of cement/ clinker of ACC cement factory Barmana under any provisions of law/ rules. Needless to mention that no powers are vested with the Deputy Commissioner to make any alterations in the existing system of transportation work of the said cement factory, which has been settled by the, Hon'ble High Court of H.P. in CWP No. 113 of 2007 vide order dated 15.06.2016, by accepting the recommendations/report submitted by the three members Committee headed by Sh Sirikant Baldi, IAS, specifically in connection with the allotment of business of ACC Cement Factory as well as engagement of trucks by the BDTS. Hence, given the facts and circumstances, the representationist(s) may approach the appropriate authority, which is competent/ empowered to take decision in respect of their grievance/demand. 8. It could not be substantiated by the petitioners before this Court that the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur, in any manner, is the authority authorised to distribute the transportation work of Cement/Clinker manufactured by ACC Cement Plant, Barmana, intra the Truck operators. That being the case, this Court does not finds any infirmity with the rejection of the representation of the petitioner-Society because the Deputy Commissioner, in the absence of any authority vested in him to pass such like orders, cannot do so. In view of the observations made hereinabove, this petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. However, it is clarified that dismissal of this writ petition shall not come in the way of the petitioner-Society in approaching the appropriate Authority in terms of the liberty granted to them by the Deputy Commissioner for redressal of their grievance. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.