Hotel Saffron Kiran through Its Prop Puneet Thakur v. the Union of India

Himachal Pradesh HC8 Jul 2026CWP/9992/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hotel Saffron Kiran; Union of India and others; DPIIT Special Scheme Section; quashing of letters dated 09.11.2023 (Annexure P-6) and 30.07.2024 (Annexure P-7); Empowered Committee; LPA No.169 of 2025 Union of India v. Atul Sharma (16.07.2025); SLP(s) dismissed 30.01.2026; disposal in terms of earlier judgment; High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; CWP No.9992 of 2026; decided 08.07.2026; G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice; Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of in terms of the judgment in LPA No.169 of 2025 (Union of India and another v. Atul Sharma and others, decided 16.07.2025); pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also disposed of. ¶¶20-21

Hotel Saffron Kiran through Its Prop Puneet Thakur Vs the Union of India — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

( 2026:HHC:27504 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No.9992 of 2026 Date of Decision:- 08.07.2026

¶4

Hotel Saffron Kiran	....Petitioner
	Versus
Union of India and others	....Respondents
Coram *The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S* *The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bip*	*. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice* *in Chander Negi, Judge.*
*Whether approved for repor*	*ting?*¹
For the Petitioner :	Ms. Vidushi Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents :	Mr. Avinash Jaryal, Senior Panel Counsel, for respondent Nos.1 to 3-UOI.
:	Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent Nos.4 and 5-State.

¶5

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

¶6

The quashing of the letters dated 09.11.2023 (Annexure P-6) and 30.07.2024 (Annexure P-7) issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (Special Scheme Section), which is subject matter of consideration in this case has been sought.

¶7

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

¶8

¶9

2. Notice. Mr. Avinash Jaryal, learned Senior Panel Counsel and Mr. Sidharth Jalta, learned Deputy Advocate General, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3-Union of India and respondent Nos.4 & 5- State, respectively.

¶10

3. 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 as Union of India and another versus Atul Sharma and others, alongwith connected matters, decided on 16.07.2025. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:

¶11

“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.

¶12

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

¶13

¶14

parameters of the notification and as noticed above, has now been done in one case though, the rejection is here.

¶15

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.

¶16

13. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.”

¶17

4. We are now further informed that a bunch of Special

¶18

Leave Petition(s) were also dismissed on 30.01.2026, the lead case of which was Union of India and another vs. Atul Sharma

¶19

and others.

¶20

5. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed

¶21

of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.