M/S Bhushan Jewellers Vs State of Hp and Ors.

This petition has been preferred seeking various reliefs including assailing issuance of notices dated 14.01.2021 No.6311, 21.01.2021 Nos.6476 and 6485, 22.01.2021 No.6550, addendum dated 17.02.2021 Nos.7022, 6933, 6937, 6935, 6917, 6909 and 6702 and also notices issued thereupon by and on behalf of the respondent Municipal Corporation, Solan.

¶15

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

¶16

( 2025:HHC:32063-DB )

¶17

2

¶18

However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of instructions imparted to her, she would be pressing relief against the notice(s) and shall not press the other reliefs.

¶19

The impugned notices were issued under the ByeLaws to regulate postings of bills, hoardings, advertisements in the limits of Municipal Council, Solan framed in the year 2008 which, according to Corporation are applicable and enforceable by Municipal Corporation for succession of Municipal Council. By notices, the petitioner was directed to show cause that why fine be not imposed upon it for violation of bye-laws referred supra .

¶20

Admittedly, the bye-laws on the basis of which, notices were issued were never published either before the constitution of Municipal Corporation or thereafter and further that after reconstitution of Municipal Council as Muncipal Corporation, Bye-Laws were also re-framed in September, 2022. However, though the bye-laws regulating the advertisements of Municipal Area, Solan were re-framed in September, 2022, but were published on 10.02.2023.

¶21

Admittedly, it is also undisputed that similar action, on the basis of the same bye-laws, was assailed by the aggrieved entities by filing CWP No.7542 of 2023 titled as M/s

¶22

( 2025:HHC:32063-DB )

¶23

3

¶24

Creation, Deonghat Solan vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and connected matters, which were decided together on 07.11.2024. The said petitions were partly allowed by a Coordinate Division Bench of this High Court on the ground that the bye-laws as framed in the year 2008 cannot be enforced against the petitioners/aggrieved person(s) as the same were not published at that relevant point of time and, therefore, were not enforceable. Accordingly, recoveries sought to be effected from the aggrieved entities were quashed and set aside, giving the right to the respondent-Corporation, if desired, to take appropriate action in accordance with byelaws, but only after September, 2022 onwards.

¶25

It has been jointly submitted that the issue pressed in the present matter is squarely covered by the judgment dated 07.11.2024 passed in CWP No.7542 of 2023 titled as M/s Creation, Deonghat Solan vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and another along-with other connected matters and, therefore, the findings returned therein shall be applicable in the present case mutatis mutandis for all intents and purposes.

¶26

Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of by quashing and setting aside the impugned action initiated/notices issued for recovery from the petitioner.

¶27

( 2025:HHC:32063-DB )

¶28

However, this order shall not come in the way of the respondent-Corporation, in case it chooses to issue fresh notices for recovery against the petitioner, strictly in accordance with bye-laws 2022, but only for the recovery w.e.f. September, 2022 onwards. Consequently, the respondent-Corporation is also restrained from effecting any recovery from the petitioner prior to September, 2022.

¶29

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed

¶30

of.

¶31

( Vivek Singh Thakur ) Judge

¶32

September 16, 2025 ( Sushil Kukreja ) (naveen) Judge

M/S Bhushan Jewellers v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Bhushan Jewellers v. State of Hp and Ors.

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

Anita Saini @Anita Devi and Another Vs Union of India and Others

LIC and Another Vs H P Urban Development Authority

Neena Thakur Vs Hp Housing and Urban Development Authority and Another

State of Hp Vs Ajay Kumar

Sanjeev Kumar Vs Income Tax Officer and Others

State of Hp Vs Vikas Katoch