2025:HHC:11093 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.90 of 2024 Decided on: 25.04.2025 State of Himachal Pradsh … Petitioner Versus M/s Vishranti Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Ms. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. Naresh K. Gupta, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner/State has assailed order 05.09.2014, passed by learned District Collector, Solan, District Solan, H.P. (Annexure P/2), order dated 18.01.2019, passed by learned Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, H.P. (Annexure P/3) and order dated 19.04.2022, passed by learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals), H.P. Shimla (Annexure P/1). Order dated 05.09.2014, in terms whereof, the proceedings which were initiated against the respondents, under Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act were decided by the Collector by granting an opportunity to the respondents to complete the project, which order of the Collector was upheld by learned Divisional Commissioner and learned Financial Commissioner by observing that the respondents had in the interregnum already acted in a manner so as to comply with the permission granted to the respondents under Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:11093 and Land Reforms Act. 2. When the case was taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that during the pendency of these proceedings the project has been completed and as the purpose for which the permission was granted under Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act stands complied by the respondents in letter and spirit, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice not to interfere with the order under challenge. 3. Learned Advocate General, on the other hand has argued that because there was an apparent violation of the permission granted to the respondents under Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, the subsequent act of the respondents of completing the project cannot cure the same. 4. Be that as it may, taking into consideration the fact that now it is not much in dispute that the project for which the permission was granted under Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act stands completed with by the respondents, this Court is of the considered view that it would be in the interest of justice not to interfere with the orders under challenge. 5. Record demonstrates that the order passed by the Collector in a Quassi Judicial Authority under the provisions of 3 2025:HHC:11093 Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, which culminated into the passing of order dated 05.09.2014, was though initially assailed unsuccessfully before the Divisional Commissioner, who dismissed the appeal on 18.01.2019, the same was thereafter assailed by way of revision unsuccessfully before learned Financial Commissioner by the State of Himachal Pradesh through Collector, Solan, H.P. 6. This Court is of the considered view that when it is the order of the Collector which is under challenge, the same cannot be assailed through the Authority which passed the order. Learned Advocate General submits that he has also taken note of this fact and he will convey it to the officers concerned to issue necessary clarification, so that these kind of mistakes are not repeated in future. Learned Advocate General further submits that though, in this case this Court has not disturbed the findings returned by learned Authority, but then it be observed that this order is in the peculiar facts of the case and it should not be treated as a precedent and the question of law raised in the writ petition by the State be left open. Ordered accordingly. 7. The petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge April 25, 2025 (Rishi)