2025:HHC:12869 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 12186 of 2024 Decided on : 07.05.2025 Abhaya Kashyap. …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:- “a) That by way of Writ of Mandamus the respondent No.3 may be directed to transfer the lease rights of the plot No.82 and 83, Phase I and II, Industrial Area, Thaliwal, Tehsil Haroli, District Una in favour of the petitioner in view of registered sale deed and permission granted by respondent No.2 vide letter dated 28.06.2024 and further grant the necessary approval towards commencement of business.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that M/s Siddhartha 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:12869 Cosmetics Plus Products is an allottee of Government Industrial Plot Nos. 82 and 83, measuring 1000 square metres, in Industrial Area Tahliwal, Tehsil Haroli, District Una. Respondent No. 5 was facing huge loan liability. In the month of February-March 2014, one Mr. Kumar Neel Shivansu introduced the petitioner to respondent No. 5 as an investor/buyer. The factory premises in issue were visited by the petitioner along-with others on 05.03.2024. Respondent No. 5 made an offer to sell the Firm with its entire property including plant and building, copyright, trademark, goodwill etc., free from all encumbrances and finished goods inventory for an amount of Rs. 85 lac. Respondent No. 5 offered to bring his contacts and expressed his willingness to work for the new entity in any respectable capacity to gain third party orders for the new entity. He assured that orders to the value of Rs. 50-60 lac per month would be placed with net profitability to the tune of 10%- 20%. It is further the contention of the petitioner that he made an offer of Rs.63.75 lac for all properties, including plant, machinery, land, building etc. to respondent No. 5. Petitioner expressed his willingness to deposit the entire amount which 3 2025:HHC:12869 was payable by respondent No.5 to the bank before the expiry of one time settlement dated 19.04.2024. Respondent No. 5 accepted the offer, but stated that he was not in a position to remove the finished goods inventory and needed protection for its value etc. 3. To cut the controversy short, as per the petitioner, on 27.03.2024, an agreement was executed between the petitioner and respondent No. 5, but due to several mistakes therein, said agreement was replaced by another agreement dated 04.04.2024, Annexure P-3. The petitioner made good the payments in terms of the agreement, as mentioned in the writ petition. Thereafter, an addendum to the Agreement dated 04.04.2024 was entered on 24.04.2024. 4. According to the petitioner, on the signing of addendum, respondent No. 5 handed over the original documents of the property to the petitioner on 04.05.2024, after obtaining the release of the same from the bank. An Agreement to Sell was entered into on 09.05.2024 and before the registration of the ‘Sale Agreement’ at Tehsil Haroli, District Una, Cheque No. 060561, dated 22.06.2024 for an amount of 4 2025:HHC:12869 Rs.13.75 lac was issued in favour of Brajeshwar Prasad by way of security for his finished goods inventory lying in factory placed with Mr. Kumar Neel as security. Thereafter, respondent No. 5 filed an application to General Manager, District Industries Center, Una, District Una, for permission to transfer the lease plot in the name of the petitioner. Director of Industries gave the necessary permission to transfer the lease on 28.06.2024. 5. On 19.06.2024, Mr. Kumar Neel informed the petitioner that security cheque was with him in the factory office but now he is not able to find out the same in the office. Petitioner, in reply thereto, sent a mail and mentioned therein that as per Agreement between the petitioner and respondent No.5, it was agreed that stock and its value shall belong to respondent No. 5. Now, the petitioner stands informed that the stock had expired or is spoiled and as it was the duty of respondent No. 5 to remove the stock, on which he had lien from the unit and realize whatever its value is, the security cheque may be returned. The petitioner vide letter dated 20.06.2024 addressed to Branch Manager, Axis Bank Limited, 5 2025:HHC:12869 Saket, New Delhi, requested to stop payment of the said cheque. Respondent No.5 was informed by Mr. Kumar Neel vide email dated 21.06.2024 that cheque in issue was to be returned to the petitioner which was given in lieu of his insistence to secure the stock value etc. As per the petitioner, respondent No. 5 had removed the cheque from the custody of Mr. Kumar Neel. Respondent No. 5 illegally cancelled the GST of the LLP without any intimation to LLP. 6. According to the petitioner, the dispute between him and respondent No.5 is on a different footing and for this, the petitioner had already filed a civil suit for permanent injunction in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Una. In an application filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure therein, respondent No.5 has been restrained from dispossessing the petitioner from the factory premises. Respondent No. 3 has granted permission to the Firm of the petitioner on 28.06.2024 for the transfer of Lease Deed. However, as respondent-Department is not transferring the lease rights in favour of the petitioner despite there being a valid registered Sale Deed dated 28.06.2024, hence the 6 2025:HHC:12869 petitioner filed this petition for the relief already enumerated hereinabove. 7. Reply to the petition has been filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 4. The petitioner was directed on 10.01.2025 to take fresh steps for the service of respondent No.5. Today, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate, informed the Court that steps for the service of the said respondent have been taken today. This Court is of the considered that when the Court had ordered that steps be taken for the service of respondent No. 5 on 10.01.2025 and two days’ time was granted to do the needful, filing of this process fee today for the service of the said respondent, is no compliance in the eyes of law. 8. At this stage, learned Additional Advocate General has informed the Court, on the strength of the reply filed by the respondent-Department, that there is a dispute going on between the petitioner and respondent No. 5 in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi and the respondent-Department has been informed of this fact in terms of Annexures R-5 and R-6, appended with the reply. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as 7 2025:HHC:12869 well as learned Additional Advocate General, this Court is of the considered view that no relief, as prayed for, can not be granted to the petitioner by this Court. 10. First of all, this Court fails to understand as to why the Industries Department is not taking cognizance of how the Industrial plots being leased out by it, are being mis-utilized by the allottees. In terms of the pleadings, Siddhartha Cosmetics Plus Products is the allottee of Industrial Plot Nos. 82 and 83, subject matter of this writ petition. Incidentally, Siddhartha Cosmetics Plus Products is not a party respondent before this Court. In paragraph No.2 of the writ petition, the petitioner states that respondent No. 1 is the State of Himachal Pradesh, respondents No. 2 to 4 are instrumentalities of the State and respondent No. 5 is necessary and proper party, in view of the facts stated in the petition. It is again reiterated that Siddhartha Cosmetics Plus Products has not been included as a party respondent in the writ petition nor Brajeshwar Prasad, respondent No. 5, has been arrayed as a respondent in its capacity as Proprietor or otherwise of respondent No. 5. 11. Be that as it may, as the plot in issue has been 8 2025:HHC:12869 leased out by the Industries Department to Siddhartha Cosmetics Plus Products, no Agreement to Sell can be entered into by Siddhartha Cosmetics Plus Products with anyone qua the said plots. The Agreement to Sell dated 09.05.2024, in the considered view of this Court, has no legal sanctity, as Siddhartha Cosmetics Plus Products not being the owner of the plot, which has been leased out to it, has no legal right to sell it. 12. In fact, in terms of the contents of this Agreement to Sell, it is mentioned therein that the seller i.e. Siddhartha Cosmetics Plus Products is the owner in possession of the plot in issue, which is completely incorrect and false averment because a lease holder, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be the owner of the plot. The Government also or the Industries Department is under no obligation to act upon and oblige the petitioner on the basis of such Agreement to Sell. In fact, this Court fails to understand as to why Industries Department is not taking any action against the original allottee for reflecting itself as the owner in possession of this plot and dealing with it by entering into an Agreement to Sell. 13. Be that as it may, otherwise also, a perusal of the 9 2025:HHC:12869 petition demonstrates that there are seriously disputed questions of fact involved therein, because there are serious disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.5, who appears to be the Proprietor of the Siddhartha Cosmetics Plus Products. Not only this, according to this Court, in such like matters, if a company or an entity, which has been leased out certain land by the Industries Department, is not in a position to continue with the activity for which the land was leased out, it has to surrender the land back to the Industries Department and thereafter only a fresh lease can be entered into by the Industries Department and that lease has to be by way of open bidding and not in the manner in which the same is being done in the present case. 14. In the light of the above observations, as this Court does not finds any merit in the writ petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 07, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)