ORDER : 1. None present on behalf of the State of Himachal Pradesh, when the matter was taken up for hearing. 2. We have heard Mr. J.S. Attri, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents (original petitioners). 3. It appears from the materials on record that the respondents herein (original petitioners) filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking a writ petition of mandamus to the State with respect to Dharampur-Rajpura Road to be declared fit for the purpose of plying of vehicles. 4. The first paragraph of the impugned order passed by the High Court would give a fair idea, as regards the reliefs which were prayed for in the petition. The first para reads thus:- "The petitioners, seek a mandamus becoming pronounced, upon the respondents, qua, Dharampur Rajpura road, becoming declared fit, for, plying of vehicles thereon, hence, for enabling the residents, of, the are concerned, to ensure the plying thereon(s), of, HRTC buses, for, theirs thereafter, availing the facility, of, making road communication(s) therefrom. Furthermore, directions are also strived, to be made upon the respondents, for, declaring illegal, and, non-est Annexure P1, (i) where through, the respondents became hence constrained, to, decline, the, making, of, a declaration, vis-a-vis, afore road being fit, for, plying vehicles, hence thereon, (ii) inasmuch as, completion of the afore road being made, subject to the land owners concerned, whose lands abut the afore link road, commencing from Dharampur -Rajpura, rather executing gift deeds, vis-a-vis, their apposite lands, and, qua the respondents." 5. The High Court also took into consideration the decision of this Court in the case of State of H.P. vs. Umed Ram Sharma reported in AIR 1986 SC 847 , wherein in para 11 this Court has observed as under:- "11. It appears to us that in the facts of this case, the controversy lies within a short compass. It is well settled that the persons who have applied to the High Court by the letter are persons affected by the absence of usable road because they are poor Harijan residents of the area, their access by communication, indeed to life outside is obstructed and/or prevented by the absence of road. The entire State of Himachal Pradesh is in hills and without workable roads, no communication is possible. The entire State of Himachal Pradesh is in hills and without workable roads, no communication is possible. Every person is entitled to life as enjoined in Article 21 of the Constitution and in the facts of this case read in conjunction with Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution and in the background of Article 38(2) of the Constitution every person has right under Article 19(1)( d) to move freely throughout the territory of India and he has also the right under Article 21 to his life and that right under Article 21 embraces not only physical existence of life but the quality of life and for residents of hilly areas, access to road is access to life itself. These propositions are well settled. We accept the proposition that there should be road for communication in reasonable conditions in view of our constitutional imperatives and denial of that right would be denial of the life as understood in its richness and fullness by the ambit of the Constitution. To the residents of the hilly areas as far as feasible and possible society has constitutional obligation to provide roads for communication." 6. The High Court ultimately allowed the Writ Petition holding as under:- "5. Even though, right to property, is, a constitutional right, however, subject to compensation being assessed, vis-a-vis, the land owners concerned, and, whose lands, abut the public road concerned, whereupon, all the respondents, cannot breach, the afore fundamental right, as they strive to do, on anvil, of, an untenable infringing therewith rather policy decision, being taken by the Government. The respondent is a welfare State, and, is duty bound under law, to provide access to road facilities, to the petitioners, and, other residents, who upon, completion, of a public road, nomenclatured as, Dharampur-Rajpura, would enjoy the facility, of, plying their vehicles thereon(s), and, also would enjoy facility, of, plying thereon(s), of, HRTC buses, (i) and, when the aforestated access to a road, is an insegregable component, of, the constitutionally guaranteed right, to life, (ii) thereupon, the afore constitutionally guaranteed right to life, cannot, at all be conceived to be breached, even through, the afore constitutionally void policy decision, being taken by the respondents. Furthermore, the aforestated policy decision, also manifestly breaches, the constitutional right, vested in private land owners concerned, through Article 300-A, and, Article 31, of, the Constitution of India, and, also the afore constitutionally guaranteed right of property, especially and reiteratedly, with, the afore policy decision, visibly appearing, to, hence militate thereagainst. 6. With the afore observations, the extant writ petition is allowed, and, in sequel, the respondents are directed to provide the facility of road to the petitioners, and, other residents, who become benefited, through completion of road Dharampur-Rajpura, and, the afore completion be ensured to be done, within six months, from today, and, also within the afore period, the respondents are directed to initiate/recourse, the apposite statutory mechanism(s), for, granting compensation to the land owners, whose land abut the afore road, and who omit, to, execute the apposite gift deeds, with, the respondent(s) concerned. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of." 7. We are of the view that no error not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the High Court in passing the impugned order. 8. In the result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 9. The interim relief granted by this Court stands vacated forthwith. The State is directed to immediately comply with the directions issued by the High Court in its impugned judgment. 10. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.