Disposed¶31

Aaa Grand Hotel Durgella v. the UOI and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC30 Oct 2025CWP/16925/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Himachal Pradesh High Court, Shimla; decision date 30.10.2025; CWPs No. 16886 & 16925 of 2025; petitioners Torque Pharmaceutical Pvt Ltd. and AAA Grand Hotel; respondents Union of India & others; disposal in terms of LPA No.169 of 2025 (Union of India and another v. Atul Sharma and others, decided 16.07.2025); consideration afresh by Empowered Committee; policy dated 23.04.2018; four-month time frame; Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice and Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge.

What did the court decide?

Both writ petitions disposed of in terms of the judgment in LPA No.169 of 2025 (under which each individual case is to be considered afresh by the Empowered Committee within four months as per the policy dated 23.04.2018); pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. ¶31

Aaa Grand Hotel Durgella Vs the UOI and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

2025:HHC:36642 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

¶3

CWPs No. 16886 & 16925 of 2025 Date of Decision : 30.10.2025

¶4

__________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No. 16886 of 2025

¶5

Torque Pharmaceutical Pvt Ltd. …..Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Union of India & others ...Respondents.

¶8

2. CWP No. 16925 of 2025

¶9

AAA Grand Hotel …..Petitioner

¶10

Versus

¶11

Union of India & others ...Respondents.

¶12

_________________________________________________________ Coram:_

¶13

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge.

¶14

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶15

______________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Avneesh Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP No. 16886 of 2025. Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP No. 16925 of 2025. For the Respondents: Mr. Anshul Attri, Central Government Counsel, for respondents No. 1 to 3-

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

Union of India, in CWP No. 16886 of 2025.

¶19

Mr. Ajay Kumar Chauhan, Central Government Counsel, for respondent No. 1-Union of India in CWP No. 16925 of 2025.

¶20

Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for the respondents-State in both the cases.

¶21

_______________________________________________________ G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral)

¶22

Notice. Mr. Anshul Attri, learned Central Government Counsel, accepts notice for respondents No. 1 to 3-Union of India in CWP No. 16886 of 2025 and Mr. Ajay Kumar Chauhan, learned Central Government Counsel, accepts the same for respondent No. 1-Union of India in CWP No. 16925 of 2025. Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of respondents-State in both the cases. 2. Learned Counsel for the parties are agreed that the 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

¶23

¶24

16.07.2025. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:

¶25

“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.

¶26

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 time frame 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.

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

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.

¶30

13. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.”

¶31

In view of the above, the present petitions are disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

¶32

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶33

(G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice.

¶34

October 30, 2025 (Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) (hemlata) Judge.

Aaa Grand Hotel Durgella v. the UOI and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aaa Grand Hotel Durgella v. the UOI and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anu Rangta Vs State of Hp and Ors.

The Mehta Transport Co. Operative Society and Ors. Vs State of Hp and Ors.

State of Hp and Others Vs Vishwa Nath

Kuldeep Chand Vs State of Hp and Ors.

MD Hp State Forest Development Corporation Limited and Ors. Vs Onkar Singh

Chhwang Nargu Negi Vs Hrtc and Ors.