2025:HHC:26699 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP Nos. 12786, 12787, 12788, 12797 of 2025 Decided on: 7 th August , 2025 __________________________________________________ CWP No.12786 of 2025 Hotel Himland ....Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents ___________________________________________________ CWP No.12787 of 2025 Himalayan Rose Guest Houses ....Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents ___________________________________________________ CWP No.12788 of 2025 Silverstone Mansions Cottage ....Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents ___________________________________________________ CWP No.12797 of 2025 Sarita Verma ....Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents ___________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? For the petitioner(s): Mr. Sanjeev Sood and Mr. Vivek Thakur, Advocates, for the petitioner(s) in CWP Nos.12786, 12787 and 12788 of 2025. Mr. D.N. Sharma and Mr. Rohit Chauhan, Advocates, for the petitioner in CWP No.12797 of 2025. For the respondents: Mr. Bharat Bhushan and Ms. Reeta Thakur, Senior Panel Counsels, Mr. Anshul Attri, Central Government Counsel and Mr. Narender Singh, Central Government Standing Counsel, for the respondents-UOI, in the respective cases. Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) Counsels agreed that the matters are squarely covered by the decision made in LPA No.169 of 2025 titled as Union of India and another vs. Atul Sharma and others, decided on 16.07.2025. The relevant paragraphs read as under:- “10. Learned Single Judge found that the appellant-Union of India could not in the first set of cases, deny the fact that the applications had been forwarded during currency of the Scheme and therefore, consideration had not been done. In such circumstances, he came to the conclusion that at least the consideration had to be made as per the terms of the policy dated 23.04.2018 (Annexure P-1). Thus, we cannot find any fault as such with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge to this 2 extent. 11. Counsel for Union of India also admits that since each and every individual case will have to be considered within the parameters of the said policy, it would be appropriate that a decision making is done by the Empowered Committee by fixing a timeframe as such. We are also of the considered opinion that the findings as such that the consideration was to be done by the Empowered Committee, thus cannot be faulted in any manner, once it is the case of the State also that they had forwarded their cases to the Empowered Committee. If that is so, then the decision making as such had to be done as per the parameters of the notification and as noticed above, has now been done in one case though, the rejection is here. 12. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that present LPAs are liable to be disposed of in the above terms along with writ petitions that each and every individual case has to be considered afresh by the Empowered Committee. Let the said exercise be done within a period of four months from today. Needless to say that it will be open to the applicants, as such, to seek their remedy in accordance with law in case there is rejection of their case. 13. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. 14. A copy of the short order be placed in all the connected matters.” 2. Keeping in view the above, we dispose of the present petitions in the same terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice 7 th August , 2025 ( Ranjan Sharma ) (ankit) Judge 3