Himachal Pradesh High Court
Hotel Tree Valley vs Union Of India And Others on 18 September, 2025
( 2025:HHC:32541 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
CWP No.15100 of 2025
Date of Decision: 18th September, 2025
.
____________________________________________________
Hotel Tree Valley ....Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents
_____________________________________________________
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Sood and Mr. Vivek
Thakur, Advocates.
For the respondents: Mr. Shyam Singh Chauhan, Central
Government Counsel, for respondents
No.1 and 2.
Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional
Advocate General, for respondents
No.3 and 4.
G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral)
Notice. Mr. Virbahadur Verma, learned Central
Government Counsel and Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, learned
Additional Advocate General, accept notice on behalf of the
respondents No.1,2 and 3 & 4, respectively.
2. Counsels agreed that the judgment passed on 16th
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
July, 2025 in LPA No. 169 of 2025 titled Union of India and
another vs. Atul Sharma and others covers the issue in
question. The relevant paragraphs read 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 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 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."
3. Accordingly, the Writ petition stands disposed of in
the same terms. All pending applications stand disposed of
accordingly.
( G.S. Sandhawalia )
Chief Justice
18th September, 2025 ( Ranjan Sharma )
(priti) Judge
