IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.3638 of 2026 Decided on: 24.03.2026 _________________________________________________________________ M/s King’s Palace Furnitures & Furnishers ....Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Jeevesh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Vedant Ranta, Advocate. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Vedant Ranta, learned counsel, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter has been heard without calling for reply. 2. An industrial plot leased out to the petitioner on 30.06.2011, was resumed by the respondent on 13.01.2022 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes - 2 - due to non-commencement of construction/production within the stipulated period, in terms of Clauses 4, 5, 12 and 24 of the allotment letter. The resumption order provided one time opportunity for restoration within one year subject to fulfillment of prescribed conditions. The said period also lapsed in January 2023. Petitioner did not make any compliance within the permissible period. On 22.04.2025, petitioner made a representation for reconsideration and re- allotment of the plot. The said representation was rejected by the respondent on 09.01.2026, inter alia, with the observation that Annual Maintenance Charges deposited by the petitioners up to 30.04.2025 from the date of resumption, were to be refunded to him. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has a fresh proposal, which if finds favour with the respondent, may entail re-allotment of the industrial plot that now stands resumed by the respondent. Learned counsel submits that petitioner is ready and willing to present his proposal to the respondent within a week and prays for direction to the respondent to consider the same in accordance with law within a time bound schedule. - 3 - 4. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the basis of instructions, apprises that though the industrial plot was resumed on 13.01.2022 and the respondent contemplates to auction the said plot, the proceedings, however, have not been finalized as on date. That respondent will have no objection for considering the proposal of the petitioner once again in accordance with law. 5. In view of the respective stands of the parties but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to offer a concrete proposal to the respondent within one week from today. In case such a proposal is received from the petitioner within the aforesaid period, the respondent shall consider the same in accordance with law and take appropriate call thereupon within two weeks thereafter. The decision so taken be communicated to the petitioner. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge March 24, 2026 R.Atal