1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8688 of 2026 Decided on: 24.06.2026 Pranesh Sodhi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P and others ..Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Tek Chand Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondents. In view of restrictive grievance urged for the petitioner during hearing of the case and the order being passed hereinafter, there is no necessity to call for reply from the respondents. Matter has according been heard at this stage. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- “(i). Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, quashing 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 and setting aside the impugned office order dated 29.08.2025 (Annexure P-25) passed by the respondent No.3, impugned appellate order dated 13.01.2026 (Annexure P-27), Impugned order dated 03.03.2026 Annexure P-28 and impugned order dated 15.05.2026 (Annexure P-31) passed by the respondent No.2; (ii). Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing the respondents to restore the leasehold rights of the petitioner in respect of Industrial Plot No.13, Industrial Area, Sultanpur, District Chamba, H.P., as per the registered Lease Deed dated 30.05.2002; (iii) Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order, directing the respondents, their agents, and servants not to interfere with the peaceful possession and lawful rights of the petitioner over the said Industrial Plot No.13, Industrial Area, Sultanpur, District Chamba, H.P.” 2. Petitioner had previously instituted Pranesh Sodhi versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.2 The said writ petition relatable to the cause raised in the present petition was disposed of as under:- “CMP No. 5501 of 2026 For the reasons statement in the application, the same is allowed. The documents filed alongwith the application are take on record subject to all just exceptions. Application to stand disposed of. CWP No. 3447 of 2026 2. Notice. Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. In view of the limited grievance raised during hearing of the writ petition and the order being passed hereinafter, reply of this writ petition is not required to be called from the respondents. Matter has accordingly been heard. 2 CWP No.3447/2026, decided on 25.03.2026. 3 3. Petitioner was allotted an industrial plot on 21.03.2001 on lease hold basis, as per terms and conditions given in the allotment letter. It appears that petitioner could not comply with the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. Considering that petitioner was not interested to continue the project/running the unit, its allotment of plot was cancelled by respondent No.3 on 29.08.2025. Petitioner’s representation against order dated 29.08.2025 was rejected by the Commissioner Industries, Himachal Pradesh on 13.01.2026. A further representation preferred by the petitioner was turned down by respondent No.1 on 03.03.2026. In the above background, petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the course of hearing its appeal/ representation before respondent No.1, petitioner could not bring to the notice of the said authority several documents, which were in his possession to reflect that petitioner had started its unit and was functional. That had the above documents been before the Competent Authority, the decision on petitioner’s representations might have been taken differently. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner would be satisfied in case it is permitted to make a fresh representation to respondent No.1, placing on record all available documents/evidence before it in order to show that petitioner’s unit has already commenced its operation, and thereafter, respondent No.1 be directed to consider the same in accordance with law. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to the prayer. 5. In view of above submissions, but without examining the merits of the case, in the interest of justice and notwithstanding office order dated 03.03.2026, this writ petition is disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation to respondent No.1 within two weeks from today alongwith all available documents/evidence on the subject matter. In case such a representation is so made, the same shall be decided by respondent No.1, in accordance with law, within three weeks thereafter after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The decision so taken, be communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of.” 4 Pursuant to above directions, respondent No.1 considered the representation of petitioner afresh and passed order on 15.05.2026 that has been assailed in the instant petition. The operative portion of the impugned order is as follows:- “11. Now, therefore, as per above mentioned points and assurance given by the allottee and to promote industrialization and to facilitate investor, a period of six months from the date of issuance of this Order is hereby accorded to the allottee to restart/ resume the unit and start commercial production with the strict condition that the allottee will sign an agreement on the stamp paper with the Department of Industries, H.P. within 10 days from the issuance of this Order including following conditions:- a. That if the allottee fails to restrat the commercial production in the said unit at Plot No.13 in Industrial Area, Sultanpur, Tehsil & District Chamba, H.P. within these six months, the Department of Industries, Himachal Pradesh will cancel the plot allotment and resume the said plot without giving any further notice to the allottee and the allottee will have no objection in the cancellation/resumption of the allotment of the said plot by the Department of Industries, Himachal Pradesh. b. That in the event of the industry failing at any point in future i.e. during the lease period, the lease hold rights of the said plot will be terminated and the Department of Industries, Himachal Pradesh will cancel the plot allotment and resume the said plot without giving any further notice to the allottee and the allottee will have no objection in the cancellation/resumption of the allotment of the said plot by the Department of Industries, Himachal Pradesh. c. That the allottee will not transfer the lease hold rights of the said land/plot to any other party upto 03 years from the date of recommencement of commercial production by the unit in the said plot.” 5 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has limited grievance with respect to the directions issued in Clauses b & c of Para-11 of the impugned order (extracted above); That above directions are not in consonance with law and contrary to the terms and conditions of the lease granted to the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that petitioner has no grievance qua the observations and directions issued in Para-11 & 11(a); That petitioner is not aggrieved with the directions issued by respondent No.1 giving him six months period for resuming/restarting the unit and for commencing commercial production within aforesaid time of six months as also the delineated consequence that follow on failure of compliance, however, his grievance is to the future contingencies as envisaged under Clauses b & c of Para-11 and the action proposed to be taken thereupon in terms thereof. 4. Keeping in view the limited grievance raised by the petitioner but without interfering with impugned order including and until para-11 and para-11(a) of impugned order dated 15.05.2026, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioner to raise his grievance in relation to Clause 11 (b) and Cause 11 (c) of the impugned order dated 15.05.2026 to respondent 6 No.1 within two weeks. Such representation shall be considered in accordance with law by the competent authority within six weeks thereafter. Respondent No.1/competent authority shall take fresh call on Clauses b & c of Clause 11 of the impugned order within the aforesaid period after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. With the above observations, petition to stand disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua June 24, 2026 Judge yogesh