IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3685 of 2026 Decided on : 19.05.2026 Rajinder Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and another …Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate General, for respondents/State. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) CMP No. 11579 of 2026 & CWP No.3685 of 2026 The application has been filed for substituting petitioner No.1, M/s BLN Infra Private Limited with the original petitioner, on the ground that permission had been granted to change the name and style of the Company way back on 30.07.2022. Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the documents dated 16.09.2022 (Annexure P-1 Colly.) to submit that the needful, as such, had already been done. In such circumstances, the substitution has been sought, as no prejudice would be caused. On 25th March, 2026, we had passed the following order:- 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes -2- ‘Counsel for the petitioners prays for time to file a specific affidavit as to whether the petitioners herein fulfil the requisite conditions and which of the clauses would debar them from applying, as per the clauses under challenge.” 2. No information has been placed on record qua petitioners No.2 to 4 as to whether they fulfil the requisite conditions on account of which they stand debarred from applying under the clause under challenge for consideration against the tender in question. Counsel for the petitioner has also referred to Annexure A-1, now placed on record along with the application for substitution, to submit that M/s BLN Infra Private Limited, along with the affidavit of Rajinder Singh, stating that M/s BLN Infra Private Limited has been awarded various tenders and, as such, details thereof have now been given in Annexure A-1. 3. We are of the considered opinion that, in view of the averments made in the Writ Petition, wherein it has been stated qua all the petitioners that they had been awarded and allotted the work for construction and maintenance, including necessary works, it would not be appropriate to allow the substitution at this stage, as necessary pleadings qua the applicant sought to be substituted, would have to be specifically incorporated in the Writ Petition. Admittedly, no document has been placed on record to show the supply of the relevant orders in favour of petitioners No.2 to 4, therefore, the concerned petitioners would also have to be struck off from the array -3- of parties. Accordingly, we do not find it fit to allow the application for substitution and dismiss the same along with the writ petition for the said reasons at this stage, since we had not issued notice. 4. Liberty is, however, granted to the applicant/petitioner to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. Hence, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 19th May, 2026 (Tarun Singh)