2025:HHC:25370 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.12356 of 2025 Decided on: 30.07.2025. __________________________________________________________ M/s Luxe Resorts Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus Union of India & ors. ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?. For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Central Government Counsel, for respondents No.1 & 3-UOI. Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.2-State. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral] Notice. Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Central Government Counsel and Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General, accept notice on behalf of respondents No.1 & 3 and respondent No.2, respectively. 2. Counsel for the parties are agreed that the issue in question is covered by the decision of this Court in LPA No.169 of 2025, titled Union of India and 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:25370 - 2 - another versus Atul Sharma and others, along with connected matters, decided on 16.07.2025. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads 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 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 2025:HHC:25370 - 3 - 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.” 3. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment. 4. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge July 30, 2025 [Shivender/Bhardwaj]