Decided On: 05.08.2025 vs Union Of India & Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 3355 HP

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 3355 HP
Judgement Date : 5 August, 2025

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Decided On: 05.08.2025 vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 August, 2025

2025:HHC:26390

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.12685 of 2025 Decided on: 05.08.2025 __________________________________________________________ M/s Barflex Polyfilms Ltd. ...Petitioner

Versus

Union of India & ors. ...Respondents Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge

1Whether approved for reporting?.

For the petitioner: Mr. Varun Thakur & Mr. Aakash Thakur, Advocates.

For the respondents: Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India [Senior Advocate] with Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate, for

respondents No.1 & 2-UOI.

                                                 Mr.   Arsh   Rattan,    Deputy
                                                 Advocate      General,      for




                                                 respondents No.3 & 4-State.

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral]

Notice. Mr. Varun Thakur, Advocate and

Mr. Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocate General, accept notice

on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2 and respondent No.3

& 4, respectively.

2. Counsel for the parties are agreed that the

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

-2- 2025:HHC:26390

issue in question is covered by the decision of this Court

in LPA No.169 of 2025, titled Union of India and

another versus Atul Sharma and others, along with

connected matters, decided on 16.07.2025. The relevant

portion of the said judgment reads as under:

"10. Learned Single Judge found that the appellant- Union of India could not in the first set of cases, deny the fact that the applications had been forwarded during currency of the Scheme and

therefore, consideration had not been done. In such circumstances, he came to the conclusion that at least the consideration had to be made r as per the terms of the policy dated 23.04.2018

(Annexure P-1). Thus, we cannot find any fault as such with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge to this extent.

11. Counsel for Union of India also admits that since each and every individual case will have to be considered within the parameters of the

said policy, it would be appropriate that a decision making is done by the Empowered

Committee by fixing a timeframe as such. We are also of the considered opinion that the

findings as such that the consideration was to be done by the Empowered Committee, thus cannot be faulted in any manner, once it is the case of the State also that they had forwarded their cases to the Empowered Committee. If that is so, then the decision making as such had to be done as per the parameters of the notification and as noticed above, has now been done in

-3- 2025:HHC:26390

one case though, the rejection is here.

12. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that present LPAs are liable to be disposed of in the above terms along with writ petitions that each and every individual case

.

has to be considered afresh by the Empowered

Committee. Let the said exercise be done within a period of four months from today. Needless to

say that it will be open to the applicants, as such, to seek their remedy in accordance with law in case there is rejection of their case.