Rajender Mehta and Others Vs State of Hp and Others

1

2026:HHC:5873 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

LPAs No. 839 and 933 of 2025. Date of Decision : 05.03.2026

1. LPA No. 839 of 2025 Mohan Orchard …..Appellant Versus State of HP & others ...Respondents. ________________________________________________________ 2. LPA No. 933 of 2025 Rajender Mehta & others …..Appellants Versus State of HP & others ...Respondents.

¶5

Coram:

¶6

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin C. Negi, Judge.

¶7

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶8

______________________________________________________ For the Appellant(s): Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General, for the respondents-State.

¶9

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

¶10

2

¶11

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral)

¶12

The present appeals are directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 5462 of 2022, titled as Mohan Orchard Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others and Civil Writ Petition No. 5624 of 2022, titled as Rajender Mehta & others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others , both decided on 18.03.2025

¶13

In Civil Writ Petition No. 5462 of 2022, there was the sole writ petitioner and in Civil Writ Petition No. 5624 of 2022, there were six writ petitioners.

¶14

In sum and substance, as noticed by the learned Single Judge, it was a dispute as such of the maintenance/functioning of Cold Storage Unit, which led to the apples produced being damaged and it being disputed questions of fact were to be decided on the basis of evidence.

¶15

The writ petitioners were thus relegated to their remedy before appropriate Court of law on the basis of such evidence. The setting up of a Cold Store was held to be a commercial venture by private respondents and the petitioners also having stored their apple crop in cold store for commercial purpose and loss as such having

¶16

3

¶17

incurred being disputed questions and of commercial nature, which could not have been adjudicated by the Writ Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶18

Learned Counsel for the appellants has tried to convince us that there was an issue of availing the facility of subsidy from the State Government and, therefore, the Writ Court should have exercised its jurisdiction, since respondent No. 4, the Cold Storage, namely-Him Agri Fresh Private Limited, was a beneficiary of the same.

¶19

We are not in a position to accept this argument raised as the issue was regarding the damage caused to apple crop being stored in the Cold Storage due to some electricity cuts in a day, due to which, the Cold Store was not functional throughout the day.

¶20

The petitions had been preferred for compensation and various issues would arise-whether there was any contract inter-se the parties; there was any exclusion clause; whether the damage was caused on what count and all these aspects are disputed questions, and a writ thus would not be maintainable.

¶21

4

¶22

The learned Single Judge has rightly relegated the present appellants as petitioners to avail an appropriate remedy before the appropriate Forum.

¶23

The law has been settled as such that Writ Court as such would only exercise its jurisdiction where writ of certiorari, writ of mandamus and writ of habeas corpus as such as quo-warranto were to be issued and the dispute is basically a claim of compensation. Thus the matter is to be adjudicated before the Court of competent jurisdiction and not before the Writ Court.

¶24

In such circumstances, no fault can be found in the order of the learned Singe Judge relegating the petitioners to seek appropriate their remedy before the appropriate Forum. Thus, we find no reason to take a contrary view as to the one taken by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶25

(G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice.

¶26

March 05, 2026 (hemlata)

¶27

(Bipin C. Negi) Judge.

Rajender Mehta and Others v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajender Mehta and Others v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chaman Lal Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Sarvajeet Singh Vs State of Hp and Ors.

M/S Om Ca Store Vs UOI and Others

Archit Butail Vs UOI and Others

State of Hp and Others Vs Niram Chand and Another

Tek Chand Vs District Red Cross Society