Disposed¶14

The Chamba Truck Operators Union v. the State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC7 Jul 2026CWP/11116/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chamba Truck Operators Union v. State of Himachal Pradesh, CWP No.11116 of 2026, decided 07.07.2026 by High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (G.S. Sandhawalia, CJ; Bipin Chander Negi, J). PDS transport tender FDSH(s)TAP 2026-27 (26.05.2026); eligibility objection to respondent No.3 Lekh Raj (trucks/blacklisting); representations Annexures P-5, P-5/A, P-5/C; petition disposed of with direction to decide representations before finalizing award; two-week undertaking by State counsel.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with observations: a decision to be taken on the petitioner's pending representations before finalizing the Award in favour of private respondent No.3; counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2-State undertook that the needful would be done within two weeks. ¶14

The Chamba Truck Operators Union Vs the State of Hp — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

( 2026:HHC:27307 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No.11116 of 2026 Date of Decision:- 07.07.2026

¶4

The Chamba Truck Operators Union ....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others ....Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioner : Mr. Aman Sood, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advoate General for respondent Nos.1 and 2-State. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral).

¶5

The petitioner takes exception to the eligibility of respondent No. 3-Lekh Raj, for the tender issued vide No. FDSH(s)TAP 2026-27, dated 26.05.2026, regarding the general transportation of food grains and other essential commodities under the Public Distribution System for the year 2026–2027 Furthermore, the petitioner has prayed that official respondent Nos. 1 and 2 be directed to declare the petitioner-union eligible and qualified for all intents and purposes. According to the

¶6

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

¶7

¶8

counsel for the petitioner, this declaration should be granted if the private respondent is found to be ineligible.

¶9

2. After going through the case file, it transpires that the petitioner had already submitted representations and sent legal notices by way of e-mail. These notices raises objections regarding the eligibility of private respondent No.3, specifically questioning whether he possesses the requisite number of trucks and whether any of those trucks are blacklisted.

¶10

3. The e-mail dated 26.06.2026 (Annexure P-5 colly) and the representation dated 25.06.2026 (Annexure P-5/A) provide details on the petitioner's eligibility. They show that a lower rate would cause financial loss to the Government, which would be clear from the representation Annexure P-5/C.

¶11

4. Keeping in view the above, we are of the considered opinion that since the representations have already been submitted, it would be appropriate that a decision is taken on the said representations before finalizing the Award in favour of private respondent No.3, if not already done.

¶12

5. Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2-State submits that the needful will be done within a period of two weeks from today.

¶13

¶14

6. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of

¶15

with the said observations. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶16

(G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice

¶17

(Bipin Chander Negi) Judge

¶18