IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.1516 of 2026 Date of Decision: 28.9.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ M/s Himalayan Village Resort Pvt. Ltd. ……...Petitioner Versus Rajesh Agarwal and Ors …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Sood and Mr. Het Ram Thakur, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India with Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 & 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for respondents No. 3 & 4. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) While placing on record copy of office memorandum dated 16.07.2026 issued under signature of Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, enclosing therewith minutes of 22nd meeting of Empowered Committee on the Industrial Development Scheme, 2017, for the State of Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand held on 25.06.2026, learned Additional Advocate General states that mandate contained in the judgment stands complied with. 2 2. Having carefully perused aforesaid document, which is taken on record, this Court finds that in terms of mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated, the Empowered Committee has considered the case of the petitioner afresh, but since petitioner-unit does not possess mandatory eligibility requirement as stipulated under Clause 7.3 of the Scheme notification, it was not found eligible for subsidy. Since there was only direction to consider the case of the petitioner afresh by the Empowered Committee, coupled with the fact that Empowered Committee has considered case of the petitioner and rejected the same, no action of respondents can be said to be contumacious and as such, there appears to be no justification to take cognizance of the averments contained in the instant contempt petition. 3. Accordingly, present petition is disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, laying therein challenge to the order passed in purported compliance of mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated. September 28, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge