IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10382 of 2026 Decided on: 29th June, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Emerging Dehati Producer Company Limited …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “ii) The necessary directions are also required to be given to the respondents by directing them to deal with the representation of the petitioner Annexure P-3 and Annexure P-4 in a rightful manner without any ill-will of malafide and to decide the same sympathetically and the letter dated 28.04.2026 issued by the respondent No.4 Annexure P-9 and subsequent letter Dated 09.06.2026 Annexure P-11 may kindly be ordered to be set aside and quashed in the given facts and circumstances of the case. iii) The respondents may also be directed by granting the writ of mandamus against them, directing the respondents to let the petitioner continue the work and perform their duties diligently in order to promote the 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 agricultural, providing employment to the public at large and by helping the small scale marginal agriculturist of the State of H.P. and to achieve the aim and object of the proposed to be achieved by the petitioner. iv) The respondents may also be restrained from interfering with the peaceful use and enjoyment of the Captive Store located in Boileauganj, Shimla-5 in which the petitioner is running the business of sale of the agriculture items and also from forcibly taking the possession of the same from the petitioner without adopting due process of law.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 3. A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was executed between the petitioner and respondent No.2-State Project Implementing Unit, Prakritik Kheti Khushhal Yojana on 06.04.2022 for developing prototype of a Captive Outlet, a retail store bringing natural and organic farming produce for city dwellers in Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. As per Clause B of the MoU, the retail outlet was to be the joint venture of Emerging Dehati Producer Company Limited and SPIU-PK3Y, Department of Agriculture, Himachal Pradesh. The latter was to be the sole owner of the space and infrastructure created. The fixed costs for setting up the outlet, as detailed in the financial estimates of the terms of reference, were to be contributed by the SPIU-PK3Y. Remaining fixed costs and recurring costs were to be borne by E Dehati. Profits incurred by the outlet were to be fully 3 owned by E Dehati. Ownership arrangements were to be reviewed after four years of the contract. The clause reads as under:- “B. Ownership: The retail outlet will be a joint venture of Emerging Dehati Producer Company Limited formally known as E Dehati and SPIU-PK3Y, Department of Agriculture, Himachal Pradesh but sole ownership of the space and infrastructure created will be of SPIU- PK3Y. The fixed costs of the setting up the outlet, as detailed in the financial estimates of the ToR will be contributed by SPIU-PK3Y. The remaining fixed costs and recurring costs will be borne by E Dehati. Profits incurred by the Outlet will be fully owned by E Dehati. The ownership arrangement will be reviewed after 4 years of contract. In case there is non-compliance of guidelines at any point of time during the contract, the Department can terminate the contract and suspend E Dehati's right to any infrastructure or usage rights of logos.” As per Clause L of the MoU pertaining to store location at Shimla, the store is owned by SPIU-PK3Y, Department of Agriculture, Himachal Pradesh. This location was to be provided free of cost for the first four years, whereafter, the agency running the captive outlet, i.e. the petitioner was to leave the venue and to look for the alternate arrangements for the outlet. The contract period being four years, the space was to be vacated and SPIU was to take over the charge of the property to be used for any other official purpose. In case of non-vacation of the space provided to the petitioner, the clause delineates the consequence as under:- 4 “L. Store Location: 'The store location will be at Shimla. This store is owned by SPIU-PK3Y, Department of Agriculture. This shall be provided free of cost the Captive outlet for the first four years, post which the agency running the captive outlet will have to leave the venue and look for alternate arrangements for the outlet. Contract is for 4 years. After which the space needs to be vacated and the SPIU will take over the charge of the property. SPIU will use this for other official purpose. In case the E Dehati will not vacate the space the SPIU-PK3Y can take the matter to the court of law and from the first day after 4 years the commercial rent will be applicable. However the SPIU-PK3Y on merits can review the further extension in this regard depending on the situation at that time.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that effective period of MoU got over on 06.04.2026, but in terms of different provisions of the MoU, the SPIU-PK3Y, i.e. respondent No.2, can review its further extension on merits depending upon the situation. That keeping this in view, the petitioner submitted a proposal on 05.03.2026 (Annexure P-3) to the respondents for renewing the MoU, that was to expire on 06.04.2026. The petitioner has placed on record the proposal for extension/renewal of MoU for operation of natural farming produce captive store at Annexure P-4. Its grievance is that without actually reviewing/considering the proposal for renewing the MoU, respondent No.2 on 28.04.2026 (Annexure P-9), directed it to vacate the outlet/premises in view of expiry of MoU on 31.03.2026. Petitioner preferred representation on 5 06.06.2026 (Annexure P-10), however, respondent No.2 vide its office letter dated 09.06.2026 (Annexure P-11), conveyed that in view of expiry of MoU on 31.03.2026, petitioner is required to vacate the outlet/premises and is also liable to pay all recurring charges etc. in terms thereof after 31.03.2026 till the date of actual vacation and handing over of premises. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that MoU though is for a period of four years, but submits that provisions thereof do contain stipulation of possibility of its being reviewed for further extension after considering the case on merits. Learned counsel submits that the impugned documents, i.e. Annexures P-9 dated 28.04.2026 and P-11 dated 09.06.2026, do not suggest any review or consideration of the case of the petitioner by respondent No.2/competent authority for review/renewing the MoU for further extension on merits of its prayer. That the petitioner will be satisfied in case respondent No.2/ competent authority is directed to consider the prayer made by it on 05.03.2026 (Annexure P-3), its proposal for extension/renewal of MoU (Annexure P-4) and representation dated 06.06.2026 (Annexure P-10) in accordance with law and keeping in view Clauses B & L of 6 the MoU for review thereof on merits of petitioner’s claim. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 5. Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, but without examining the merits of the matter and notwithstanding the office letter dated 09.06.2026 (Annexure P-11), this writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent No.2/competent authority to decide the representation of the petitioner for extension/renewal of the MoU for operation of natural farming produce captive store submitted on 05.03.2026 (Annexure P-3) alongwith its proposal for extension/renewal (Annexure P-4) and representation dated 06.06.2026 (Annexure P-10) made in this regard, afresh in accordance with law and keeping in view the provisions of MoU dated 06.04.2022 (Annexure P-2), within a period of three weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua June 29, 2026 Judge Mukesh