1 2025:HHC:34781 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 15981 of 2025 alongwith connected matters. Date of Decision : 14.10 .2025 ________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No. 15981 of 2025 Vishal Engineering Company ....Petitioner Versus Union of India & others ….Respondents. 2. CWP No. 15982 of 2025 Micropet Industries ....Petitioner Versus Union of India & others ….Respondents. 3. CWP No. 16028 of 2025 Chinamastika Camping Resort ....Petitioner Versus Union of India & others ….Respondents. 4. CWP No. 16032 of 2025 Aqua Parenteral ....Petitioner Versus Union of India & others ….Respondents. 2 5. CWP No. 16033 of 2025 The Xanadu ....Petitioner Versus Union of India & others ….Respondents. 6. CWP No. 16034 of 2025 India Continental Private Limited ....Petitioner Versus Union of India & others ….Respondents. 7. CWP No. 16036 of 2025 M/s Varav Biogenesis Pvt. Ltd. ....Petitioner Versus Union of India & others ….Respondents. 8. CWP No. 16039 of 2025 Almed Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. ....Petitioner Versus Union of India & others ….Respondents. 9. CWP No. 16046 of 2025 Ideal Pet Industries ....Petitioner Versus Union of India & others ….Respondents. 3 10. CWP No. 16051 of 2025 M/s Vashisht Alloys ....Petitioner Versus Union of India & others ….Respondents. 11. CWP No. 16052 of 2025 Saboo Tor Private Limited ....Petitioner Versus Union of India & others ….Respondents. 12. CWP No. 16055 of 2025 Shivalik Packaging Industries ....Petitioner Versus Union of India & others ….Respondents. 13. CWP No. 15985 of 2025 BR Agrotech Limited ....Petitioner Versus Union of India & others ….Respondents. 14. CWP No. 16086 of 2025 Jupiter Multi Fruit Processor ....Petitioner Versus Union of India & others ….Respondents. _______________________________________________________ 4 Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Sood, Mr. Vivek Thakur, Mr. Chaman Negi , Mr. Hakam Bhardwaj, Mr. Abhinav Purohit & Mr. Digvijay Singh Thakur, Advocates, for the petitioners in the respective petitions. For the Respondents: Mr. Harish Sharma, Senior Panel Counsel, for Union of India in CWP No. 15981 of 2025. Ms. Sheetal Vyas, Central Government Counsel, for Union of India in CWP No. 15028 of 2025. Ms. Vandana Misra, Central Government Counsel for Union of India in CWP No. 16033 of 2025. Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Central Government Counsel for Union of India in CWP No. 16034 of 2025. Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Senior Panel Counsel, for Union of 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 5 India, in CWP No. 16036 of 2025. Mr. Virbahadur Verma, Central Government Counsel for Union of India in CWPs No. 16055 & 16086 of 2025. Mr. Ajay Chauhan, Central Government Counsel, for Union of India in CWP No. 16046 of 2025. Mr. Anshul Attri, Central Government Counsel, for Union of India, in CWP No. CWP No. 16032 of 2025. Ms. Reeta Thakur, Senior Panel Counsel, for Union of India, in CWP No. 16039 of 2025. Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans, Senior Panel Counsel, for Union of India, in CWP No. 15985 of 2025. Mr. Janak Raj, Central Government Counsel for Union of India in CWP No. 15982 of 2025. Mr. Balram Sharma, DSGI, for Union of India in CWPs No. 16051 & 16052 of 2025. Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate 6 General, for respondents- State in all the petitions. G.S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral) Notice. Mr. Balram Sharma, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, Mr. Harish Sharma, Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Ms. Reeta Thakur, Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans learned Senior Panel Counsels, Ms. Sheetal Vyas, Ms. Vandana Misra, Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Mr. Virbahadur Verma, Mr. Ajay Chauhan, Mr. Anshul Attri and Mr. Janak Raj, learned Central Government Counsels,, accept notice on behalf of respondent-Union of India in the respective petitions and Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of respondents-State, in all the petitions. 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 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: 7 “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 time frame 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 8 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.” 3. In view of the above, the present petitions are 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. October 14, 2025 (Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) (hemlata) Judge.