Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 18318 (HP)

APPLE PARADISE GUEST HOUSE v. RAJESH AGRAWAL AND OTHERS

COPC/1111/2026 · 2026-08-12

Sushil Kukreja

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2026:HHC:33838 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.1111 of 2026 Date of Decision: 12.08.2026 ___________________________________________________ Apple Paradise Guest House ....Petitioner Versus Rajesh Agrawal and others …Respondents ___________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 ________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Vivek Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India, with Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.1 & 2. Ms. Archana Negi, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.3 & 4. ________________________________________________ Sushil Kukreja, Judge (Oral) Notice. Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate and Ms.Archana Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General, accept notice on behalf of the respective respondents. 2. Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India has placed on record copy of Office Memorandum dated 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:33838 16.07.2026 alongwith Minutes of the 22nd Empowered Committee Meeting, wherein it has been stated as under:- “In view of the above, the Committee noted that, as the procedure prescribed under the Guidelines for processing of applications for registration purpose has not been completed and as the mandatory eligibility requirements stipulated under Clause 7.3 of the Scheme Notification, as reproduced in Part C of these Minutes, is not being fulfilled, the unit, prima facie, is not found eligible. Moreover, in the absence of any budgetary allocation under the Scheme, the application cannot be granted registration. ” 3. Therefore, in this view of the matter, no further orders are required to be passed in the present contempt petition and, accordingly, the same is closed and disposed of. Notice discharged. 4. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy, as available to it under the law. The petition is disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any. ( Sushil Kukreja ) August 12, 2026 Judge (V. Himalvi)