1 ( 2025:HHC:34140 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.15676 of 2025 Decided on: 26.09.2025 Akhil Kumar ......Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors ....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhimanyu Rathore, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pranay Partap Singh, Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice(Oral) The challenge in the present writ petition is to the impugned tender notice dated 01.05.2025 (Annexure P/5) and the lease deed dated 16.6.2025 executed in favour of the private respondent No.6. A perusal of the same would go on to show that it was notice qua taking the Central Gramin Bhandar Seogi (Pandoh) established on Mandi Kullu four lane on lease basis. A perusal of terms and conditions would go on to show that this was 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:34140 for a period of ten years. The said area apparently has a Restaurant area, two party halls, amphitheatre, Toilets adjoining restaurant and parking space. 2 The sole grouse as such is that the petitioner had earlier qualified in the tender in the year 2019 and for a period of five years had occupied the said premises, which, vide lease deed dated 12.9.2019, Annexure P/2 and the same may be extended in his favour. The same has not been extended in his favour in spite of the fact that there was such provision. However, his request has been rejected on the ground that the premises would be given to Self Help Group members to provide marketing and selling platform for the products made by them. It is the contention that the authority by getting vacated the premises on the said premise, has acted arbitrarily. 3 We are of the considered opinion that the policy decision qua rejection was taken on 23.10.2024 Annexure P/4 and the tender was dated 1.5.2025 Annexure P/5 after a period of more than around five months. It is for the authority to take a call as such in which manner it wishes to lease out the property and it was also open to the petitioner to apply and compete for the tender if he so desires. He had never objected at that 3 ( 2025:HHC:34140 point of time and now when the allotment has been made in favour of respondent No.6, this writ petition has been filed. 4 The interest of the private respondent, therefore, cannot be compromised in such manner, who was unaware of the background of the situation and, therefore, even the prayer for compensation in the writ petition as such is mis-conceived. 5 We are thus of the considered opinion that this forum is not the correct forum and if the petitioner has any grievance against the authority, it is open for him to go and file appropriate civil proceedings for damages. 6 Resultantly, the instant writ petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice September 26, 2025 (Bipin Chander Negi) (mamta) Judge