IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 2745 of 2020 Decided on 28th April 2025 M/s P. Krishan Kumar and company and another …Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners: Mr. Rohit, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1. Ms. Kiran Lata Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr. D.N. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following relief:- “It is, therefore, prayed that the present writ petition may kindly be allowed by issuing writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to hand over the possession of Shop No.6, Block-B, Regulated Market Complex, Dhalli, Shimla to the petitioners as per letter dated 17.01.2020 2 (Annexure P-2) or such other orders, direction or writ as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper to meet the ends of justice be also passed on this petition in the ends of law and justice.” 2. The petitioners herein were aggrieved by the fact that despite in terms of Annexure P-2, dated 17.01.2020, shop No.6 being allotted to them in lieu of the petitioner shifting from shop No.12 (UF), Block-A RMC Dhalli to Block-B RMC Dhalli, the said allotment was not taken to its conclusion for the reason that earlier the sole proprietor of the petitioner Company was not in town and later on, on account of the COVID-19 pandemic. 3. When the case was taken up for consideration on the last date, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3, on instructions, apprised the Court that the complex, in which, the petitioner was seeking the allotment of the shop was on the verge of being demolished and a new complex was to be constructed thereupon and said respondent was willing to allot a shop to the petitioner on same terms and conditions as were mentioned in Annexure P-2, save and except that the rent shall be dependent upon the value of the shop as shall be determined at the relevant time. 3 4. Today, petitioner No.2, who is the sole proprietor of petitioner No.1, is present in person in the Court. He submits that it is agreeable to him that after the construction of a new complex, similar shop as was earlier be allotted. 5. In the light of the fact that respondent No.3 is willing to allot a shop to the petitioners after fresh construction of the complex is undertaken by respondent No.3 in about 18 months’ time, this petition is disposed of with the direction that immediately after the construction of the marketing complex, a shop shall be allotted to the petitioners forthwith on the strength of this order of course on the terms and conditions that shall be entered into by the parties and taking into consideration the value of the shop in question, as it shall be on the relevant time. Till the new shop is not allotted and handed over to the petitioners by the respondent, petitioners shall continue to occupy the premises presently in their possession and the respondent shall not insist upon the petitioners to vacate the same. It is further clarified that it will only be after actual physical possession of the premises is offered to the petitioners 4 by respondent No.3 that the petitioners shall be asked to vacate the premises presently in their possession which they will vacate within 15 days. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge April 28, 2024 (Vinod)