( 2025:HHC:27851 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 10487 of 2025 Decided on:  14.08.2025 ______________________________________________________________ Chanchal Kaundal ....Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. …Respondents _ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur,  Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja,  Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Naveen Awasthi, Advocate. For the respondents    : Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Senior Panel   Counsel,   for   respondent No. 1. Mr. Kush Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 to 4. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (oral) Petitioner has approached this Court to quash and   set   aside   notice,   dated   13.06.2025   (Annexure   P­4), inviting   applications   for   allotment   of   shops   as   well   as direction   dated   19.06.2025   (Annexure   P­5),   issued   by Estate   Office   of   the   respondent,   National   Institute   of Technology,   Hamirpur   (NIT),   directing   the   petitioner   to 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2025:HHC:27851 ) vacate   the   shop/canteen/booth,   as   per   terms   and conditions of notice, dated 22.03.2023, No: NIT/HMR/EO/Shops/2023/1143­1148, inviting application for allotment of shops/Clauses of Agreement of respective shops/Canteen/Booth. 2. Vide   communication   dated   13.06.2025 (Annexure   P­4)   issued   by   NIT,   applications   have   been invited for allotment of 26 shops/canteens/booths in the campus of NIT, wherein, canteen No. 1 has been reserved for registered cooperative societies, amongst the existing cooperative societies eligible to participate in the bidding process with minimum five years registration period and experience in providing services of food and beverages. 3. The only ground to assail this notice, argued on behalf  of  the   petitioner,  is   that  this   notice  is   arbitrary, irrational, unreasonable and unconstitutional, as canteen No. 1, in which premises, petitioner, as on date, is running his   shop/canteen/booth   has   been   reserved   only   for registered   cooperative   societies,   depriving   the   petitioner from participating in bidding process for the said canteen No. 1. 2 ( 2025:HHC:27851 ) 4. There are total 26 shops/canteens/booths, for which applications for allotment have been invited by NIT. Out   of   that   reservation   of   one   canteen   for   cooperative Societies   cannot   be   termed   as   arbitrary,   irrational, unreasonable and unconstitutional, as it is also part of the ‘Public Policy’ of the State to boost cooperative movement by encouraging cooperative societies by giving preference or reservation   to   cooperative   societies. Reservation   of   one canteen   for   cooperative   society,   out   of   26 shops/canteens/booths,   is   neither   suppressive   nor arbitrary, irrational, unreasonable and unconstitutional. 5. It is also apt to record that the petitioner was having right to participate in the process of allotment of shops/canteens/booths  other  than  the  canteen reserved for cooperative societies. Therefore also, this reservation cannot be held to be unreasonable restriction on the right of the petitioner to run a canteen after participating in the process advertised for allotment of shops/canteens/booths. 6. It is also relevant to record information placed on   record   by   learned   counsel   for   NIT   that   Smt.   Nisha Kumari, wife of petitioner has already participated in the 3 ( 2025:HHC:27851 ) allotment process, who has been allotted canteen No. 2 and has occupied the same on 02.08.2025. It  has also been brought in our notice by learned counsel for NIT that for   allotment   of   canteen   to   one   family   member   (wife   of petitioner),   other   family   member(s),   are   not   eligible   for allotment or continuing the canteen in the premises as per norms   and,   therefore,   petitioner   is   neither   entitled   nor competent   either   to   apply   for   allotment   afresh   or   to continue the present canteen. 7. Therefore,   we   do   not   find   any   merit   in   the petition   for   assailing   notice   inviting   applications   for allotment of shops/canteens/booths by NIT. 8. Admittedly, vide communication dated 19.06.2025 (Annexure P­5), petitioner alongwith others has been directed to vacate the shop/canteen/booth. 9. It has been  contended  on behalf  of  NIT that work of canteen in occupation of the petitioner (canteen No.   1)   was   allotted   to   the   petitioner   in   furtherance   to tender process undertaken by the respondent­NIT in the year, 2023 and in this regard an agreement was entered between   the   petitioner   and   NIT,   wherein,   it   has   been specifically mentioned that allotment shall be for a period 4 ( 2025:HHC:27851 ) of two years commencing from 19.06.2023 and, therefore, arguments   have   been   advanced   on   behalf   of   NIT   that period of two years has already expired on 19.06.2025 and thus   petitioner   is   liable   to   vacate   the   canteen   in   his occupation. 10. Referring   communication   dated   30.11.2023 issued by Estate Officer NIT, Hamirpur to the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the canteen allotted to the petitioner was in worst condition and   before   running   repair   and   maintenance   work   of canteen   was   required   which   was   completed   by   NIT Hamirpur in the month of November, 2023. Thereafter vide communication dated 30.11.2023, petitioner was directed to take possession of the canteen w.e.f. 01.12.2023 and, therefore, two years of allotment are to be reckoned from 01.12.2023,   especially   when   monthly   rent   was   also charged and paid thereafter. 11. Referring   condition   No.   3   of   the   agreement, learned counsel for the NIT has submitted that premises had to be furnished by the Contractor/Licensee himself before starting shops/canteens/booths. 5 ( 2025:HHC:27851 ) 12. Therefore, it has been contended on behalf of NIT   that   it   was   duty   of   the   petitioner   to   get   the   shop repaired well in time within allotment period and to start shop thereafter or immediately after allotment. It has been contended that canteen was allotted to the petitioner on 02.06.2023 and agreement was signed on 19.06.2023, but the petitioner did not occupy the premises citing various reasons, as evident from communication dated 13.06.2023 placed on record as Annexure R­4 and as 5,000 students were   being   deprived   of   essential   canteen   services   and, therefore,   in   the   interest   of   students’   welfare,   public   at large and also to avoid further revenue loss, the institute pro­actively furnished the canteen as per the petitioner’s requirements,   and   thus   period   of   two   years   shall commence w.e.f. 19.06.2023. 13. There   is   a   considerable   difference   between furnishing a shop and repair and maintenance thereof. In communication dated 30.11.2023, it has not been stated at any place that NIT had furnished the canteen, but it has been stated in clear and unambiguous terms that repair and maintenance work of canteen was completed by NIT. Otherwise also, in case repair and maintenance was also to 6 ( 2025:HHC:27851 ) be   done   by   the   allottee   and   the   petitioner   was   not occupying   the   shop   for   want   of   such   repair   and maintenance,   NIT   was   having   every   right   to   cancel   the allotment   for   not   possessing   or   starting   canteen immediately after allotment. But facts speak contrary. NIT got the premises repaired without charging anything from allottee (petitioner). 14. The omission and commission on part of NIT goes against the plea taken by NIT in para­5 of the reply as well as with reference to Clause 3 of the Agreement entered between petitioner and NIT. 15. In aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that two years of allotment with respect to canteen allotted to the petitioner in the year, 2023 has to be reckoned w.e.f. 01.12.2023 and, therefore, petitioner, as per terms of the allotment, has right to run the   canteen   till   30.11.2025,   irrespective   of   fact   that   in fresh   process   wife   of   the   petitioner   has   been   allotted canteen. However,   in   case   petitioner   or   his   family member(s)   including   his   wife   had   obtained   allotment   in previous process undertaken by NIT in the year, 2023, in addition to   canteen allotted to the petitioner and to his 7 ( 2025:HHC:27851 ) family member, shall be liable to face consequences for that and NIT shall be entitled to take action for that in accordance with law. 16. Needless to say, immediately on expiry of two years i.e. on 01.12.2025, the petitioner shall vacate the canteen occupied by him, so as to enable NIT to hand over its possession to the next allottee, whosoever may be, in accordance with tender process completed in consonance with the relevant law as applicable. 17. Learned   counsel   for   NIT   has   expressed apprehension that in view of aforesaid order passed by this Court, NIT shall lose its right to take any action against the petitioner for which NIT is entitled to take as per terms of the agreement or conditions of the allotment. 18. Needless to say, NIT has every right to proceed against any allottee, including the petitioner in consonance with   terms   and   conditions   of   the   allotment   as   well   as agreement by following due process, as permissible under law and in such event, the petitioner shall also have every right to defend him, in accordance with law. 19. It   is   also   made   clear   that aforesaid observations shall not entitle the petitioner to continue in 8 ( 2025:HHC:27851 ) possession of the canteen in his possession as on date after expiry of term of allotment, i.e. 30.11.2025. 20. Petition   is   disposed   of,   so   also   pending application(s), if any, in aforesaid terms. ( Vivek Singh Thakur ) Judge ( Sushil Kukreja ) August 14, 2025 Judge (raman) 9