IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15860 of 2025 Date of Decision: 16.10.2025 ____________________________________________________________ M/S Ambuja Cements Ltd. …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents ____________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Kulwant Chauhan, Advocate, along with Mr. Virender Thakur, Deputy Manager Legal (Company Representative). For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. Mr. Balram Sharma, DSGI, for respondent No.4. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs: “I. That writ or order in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued and the order dated 28.06.2025 (Annexure P-11) and order dated 01.08.2025 (Annexure P-15) may kindly be quash and set-aside, whereby Transport Subsidy Claim related to post registration period (July 2012 to March 2015) was rejected without passing any speaking order, same being unreasonable and in frustration of the object and purpose of the Transport Subsidy Scheme. II. That, in the alternative, the writ or order in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued with a direction to the Respondent No.1 to consider and decide the representation dated 26.09.2025 (Annexure P-16) on whether MoU dated 01.03.2008 is part of Transport Subsidy Scheme, 1971 or checklist by Respondent No. 4 vide letter dated 10.09.2009 after calling the records from SLC and in case, MoU is found to be not part of the Transport Subsidy Scheme, 1971 or checklist issued by Respondent No. 4, then necessary directions to be issued by Respondent No. 1 to Respondent No. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3 to settle the Petitioner's claim afresh for the period July 2012 to March 2015 for a consolidated amount of Rs. 42.74/- Cr. In accordance with the Transport Subsidy Scheme, 1971 and file a revised compliance report within 30 days.” 2. Before reply, if any, could be received from the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-16), whereby prayer has been made for reconsideration of orders dated 28.06.2025 and 01.08.2025 passed by the Director of Industries, Government of Himachal Pradesh, thereby rejecting the claim of the petitioner for transport subsidy. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, learned Additional Advocate General fairly states that respondents are not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation dated 25.09.2025 (Annexure P-16) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders taking note of documents adduced on record by the petitioner along with representation as well as present writ petition. Liberty 3 is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if it still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge October 16, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)