2025:HHC:6401 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 5624 of 2022 Decided on: 18.03.2025 Rajender Mehta and others … Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioners : Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, Addl. AG for respondent-State. : Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate for respondents No. 4 to 6. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have primarily prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the Respondent No. 1 to 3 to take action against Respondent No. 4 to 7 who have availed facility of 80% subsidy from the State Government and also availed facility of land on lease deed for establishing CA Cold Store at Village Balghar, P.O. Sainj, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla, H.P. and now the Respondent No. 5 is sitting at Jallandhar and he is cheating the apple growers like the petitioner as a result of 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:6401 mishandling of the Unit and petitioner has been put in huge loss without having any fault on his part. (ii) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the Respondent No. 1 to 3 to constitute appropriate Committee who should inspect after every interval all the CA Cold Stores including Respondent No. 4 to verify whether they are being run in accordance with law after availing the subsidy of crores of rupees from the State of Himachal Pradesh or not. (iii) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the Respondent No. 4 to 7 to release the remaining apple boxes of the petitioners in the condition which is evident from Annexure P-1 alongwith other raw material and also to compensate the loss of the petitioner growers.” 2. The petitioner are apple orchardists and have invoked the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia alleging that respondents No. 4 and 5 with the assistance of respondents No. 6 and 7 have taken the advantage of 80% subsidy from the State Government for establishing the Cold Store in the State of Himachal Pradesh and having availed the facilities from the State Government for setting up of the Cold Store, they are not giving adequate facilities to the apple growers like the 3 2025:HHC:6401 petitioners. It is averred in the writ petition that despite having availed 80% subsidy from the State Government for the purpose of setting up of the Cold Store, there are 2-3 electricity cuts in a day, due to which, CA Cold Store is not functional throughout the day. It is also the contention of the petitioners that respondents No. 4 to 7 are legally bound to provide appropriate electricity to the said Unit by using generator etc. It is also the contention of the petitioners that in the month of August 2021, they came in contact of respondent No. 7 who convinced them that as the CA Cold Store Unit in village Balghar, PO Sainj, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla, H.P. is equipped with latest scientific technology, therefore, the apple crop of the petitioners which was being produced at a height of 7500 to 8800 feet can be stored in their unit for 10 months and it shall remain in the same condition, in which, it will be stored. According to the petitioners, being allured, they stored the apple crop in the Cold Store and also paid the amount as was claimed for storing the crop but apple crop was damaged etc.. It is primarily in this background that the petitioners have approached this Court alleging that the State is not taking adequate care to look after the interests of the apple growers per se. It is also the contention of the petitioners that there is a criminal breach of trust on the part of the 4 2025:HHC:6401 private respondents and hence, this writ petition has been filed. 3. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and having perused the averments made in the writ petition as well as documents appended therewith as also the reply filed to the writ petition by respondents No. 1 to 3, this Court is of the considered view that the issue raised in this writ petition cannot be decided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Whether or not the Cold Store is functioning properly, is not an issue that can be decided in the writ jurisdiction. There are allegations levelled by the petitioners about the maintenance/functioning of the Cold Storage Units, which are disputed by the respondents, which can be decided by appropriate Court of law on the basis of evidence, which may be led by the parties in support of their respective contentions. Otherwise also, not only setting up of a Cold Store is a commercial venture by the private respondents, the petitioners also stored their apple crop in cold store for commercial purpose. This being a pure and simple issue of commercial nature and further as there are disputed questions of fact involved in this writ petition, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to approach 5 2025:HHC:6401 appropriate Fora. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge March 18, 2025 (narender)