M/S Om Ca Store Vs UOI and Others

For the Petitioner : Mr. Anuj Nag, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Senior Panel Counsel, for respondents No.1 & 2/ Union of India.

¶14

Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.3 & 4/State.

¶15

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral)

¶16

Notice. Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, learned Senior Panel Counsel

¶17

and Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, learned Additional Advocate General, accept notice on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2 and respondents No.3 & 4, respectively.

¶18

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

¶19

Union of India and another versus Atul Sharma and others, along

¶20

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

¶21

2

¶22

with connected matters , decided on 16.07.2025. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:

¶23

“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

¶24

Judge to this extent.

¶25

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.

¶26

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. 13. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.”

¶27

3

¶28