1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2014 of 2026 Date of Decision : 30.04.2026 Riman Thakur and others …… Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and 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 Petitioners : Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1/State. Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta and Mr. Balwinder Singh, Advocates, for respondents No.2 and 3. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (oral) The challenge in the present case is to the fresh process of auction which was conducted for the commercial shops situated at the Bus- Stand, Patlikuhal, District Kullu, on the monthly basis for a period of ten years and the rent for initial period was only to be fixed for three years and thereafter there was to be an annual enhancement. The petitioner’s sole case is that he had earlier participated in the auction process which had been initiated in March, 2025 and deposited the earnest money as such of Rs.40,000/- each. 2. The cancellation of the earlier proceedings without any reasons and the retention of the earnest money is, thus, highlighted by the counsel. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. However, a perusal of Annexure P-3 would go on to show that on 29.11.2025, petitioner No.1 was informed regarding the fact that the auction process held on 12.03.2025 has been cancelled as per the letter received from the Head Office, on 04.10.2025 and he had been requested to provide his bank account number and IFSC code, so that the earnest money could be refunded. Apparently, there is nothing on record to show that any representation was made that the earnest money should be retained and his earlier bid should be considered in case there is any fresh auction. The fresh auction was held on 25.02.2026, which is clear from Annexure P-4 and the terms and conditions are also different as it is up to ten years, whereas the first auction was for a period of three years. As communicated to him on 12.01.2026, the petitioner had again been informed that the earlier bid stood cancelled and he had been requested to provide his bank account number and IFSC code, so that the earnest money could be refunded. 4. Counsel for respondent No.2, on the last date of hearing has placed on record instructions dated 22.04.2026, which goes on to show that the earlier auction proceedings had been considered at the Headquarter level and since proper process had not been adhered to and completed, the said auction proceedings were cancelled and directions were given for inviting fresh tender. The new tender bid had taken place and the highest bids have been received, which is not disputed by petitioner No.5, whose wife Lata Devi has also been given Shop No.7. It has been mentioned that final allotment shall be made in favour of the highest valid bidders after scrutiny and approval by the Competent Authority. For such reasons, the present petition has become infructuous, qua the said petitioner. 3 5. In such circumstances, since the fresh auction has been finalized and the Headquarter did not approve the earlier auction proceedings, the fact that the terms and conditions were also not the same in both the tenders and it is a settled principle that one has only a right of consideration, we do not find any viable reason to keep the matter pending and dispose of the present petition with a direction to respondent No.2 to refund the earnest money within ten days, on providing by the petitioner his bank details. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice ( Bipin Chander Negi) April 30, 2026 (KS) Judge