IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Ex. Pet. No.1963 of 2025 Decided on : 10.07.2026 Bonafide Himachali’s Hydro Power Developers Association. ...Petitioner Versus Union of India and Ors. …Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Sarthak Mehta, Advocate. For the respondent(s) : Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India, for respondent No.1-Union of India. Mr. Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.2 and 3/State. Mr. Shubham Sood, Advocate, for respondent No.4. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not in a position to press the present execution petition, since the order passed on 16.04.2018 in CWP No.4450 of 2015, titled Bonafide Himachali’s Hydro Power Developers Association Vs. Union of India and Ors., was for reconsideration of 1WhetherthereportersofthelocalpapersmaybeallowedtoseetheJudgment?Yes -2- Notification dated 05.05.2014, regarding prescribing uniform width of Right of Way (RoW) for laying the transmission lines on the forest land, has been complied with.

2. As per the reply filed by respondent No.1, in the meeting held on 03.04.2019, the Ministry of Environment and Forests, did not agree to any relaxation in RoW for transmission lines. The Guidelines dated 05.05.2014, had been revised, vide Comprehensive Guidelines dated 08.03.2019 and the State Government had to take action accordingly. Letter dated 31.05.2019 has been appended as Annexure R-1 along with the Minutes of Meeting held on 03.04.2019. 3. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the decision has already been taken on the issue in the case at hand and nothing survives for adjudication in execution. 4. Therefore, the present petition is disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. If the petitioner is still aggrieved, it is always open to it, to challenge the same in accordance with law, if permissible. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 10th July, 2026 (Gaurav Rawat)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Ex. Pet. No.1963 of 2025 Decided on : 10.07.2026 Bonafide Himachali’s Hydro Power Developers Association. ...Petitioner Versus Union of India and Ors. …Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Sarthak Mehta, Advocate. For the respondent(s) : Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India, for respondent No.1-Union of India. Mr. Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.2 and 3/State. Mr. Shubham Sood, Advocate, for respondent No.4. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not in a position to press the present execution petition, since the order passed on 16.04.2018 in CWP No.4450 of 2015, titled Bonafide Himachali’s Hydro Power Developers Association Vs. Union of India and Ors., was for reconsideration of 1WhetherthereportersofthelocalpapersmaybeallowedtoseetheJudgment?Yes -2- Notification dated 05.05.2014, regarding prescribing uniform width of Right of Way (RoW) for laying the transmission lines on the forest land, has been complied with.

2. As per the reply filed by respondent No.1, in the meeting held on 03.04.2019, the Ministry of Environment and Forests, did not agree to any relaxation in RoW for transmission lines. The Guidelines dated 05.05.2014, had been revised, vide Comprehensive Guidelines dated 08.03.2019 and the State Government had to take action accordingly. Letter dated 31.05.2019 has been appended as Annexure R-1 along with the Minutes of Meeting held on 03.04.2019. 3. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the decision has already been taken on the issue in the case at hand and nothing survives for adjudication in execution. 4. Therefore, the present petition is disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. If the petitioner is still aggrieved, it is always open to it, to challenge the same in accordance with law, if permissible. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 10th July, 2026 (Gaurav Rawat)