2026:HHC:19042 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 15091 of 2025 Date of decision: 21.05.2026 M/s Om Namah Shivay Enterprises …Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin C. Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Vivek Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Balram Sharma, DSGI with Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Kush Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 and 3. G. S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral) The challenge is made to the allotment of Booth No. 1 to respondent No. 4 in preference to the petitioner’s choice, who has now been allotted Booth No. 2, vide letter dated 02.08.2025 (Annexure P-2). 2. The allotment as such is for the purposes of beverage and snacks Booth in front of the Administrative Block for a monthly rent of Rs. 51,000/- plus 18% GST, which comes to Rs. 60,298/-. 2 2026:HHC:19042 3. The argument, which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioner had multiple choice to choose from the booths for which he had bid for and, therefore, the introduction of the preference form after bid submission but before opening the same, violates the fundamental principles and destroys the level playing field and competitive nature of the bidding process. 4. The stand of the respondents as such is that as per the Notice Inviting Tender for allotment of shops/canteen/ Booth, dated 13.06.2025 (Annexure P-1), the application had to be received on 07.07.2025 and tenders were to be opened on 08.07.2025, which was accordingly done. The bidders could be successful for securing the tender for more than one shop and, therefore, the authorised Committee had decided to take an undertaking of preference of shops/booths/canteen from all participating bidders. The petitioner as such had given 1st preference to Booth No. 2, over Booth No. 1, Booth No. 3 and shop No. 4 and accordingly, Booth No. 2 was accordingly allotted, which had been approved on 25.07.2025. 5. As per the copy of Minutes of Licence Committee meeting dated 08.07.2025 (Annexure R-2/B), letter of allotment was issued to the petitioner on 02.08.2025. The petitioner had also acquiesced to the procedure and its 3 2026:HHC:19042 consequences and the objections and claims raised were an afterthought and deserve to be rejected. 6. As per Condition No. 29(b) of Notice Inviting Tender, dated 13.06.2025, only one shop was to be allotted to a person or his/her family member even if the bidder was successful in bidding multiple shops. In support of the said stand, the respondent has placed on record undertaking (Annexure R-2/A), wherein the consent as such for Booth No. 2 has been given by the petitioner. 7. The shop in question, which had been allotted is 114.07 sq. meter and is situated in the front of the Administrative Block. The Booth No. 1, which is now sought to be claimed is having area of 121.45 sq. meters and is situated at tri-junction near Health Centre and usage is for the same purpose and the reserved licence fee is Rs.4100/- for Booth No. 2 and Rs. 4300/- for Booth No. 1. 8. It is apparent that the procedure prescribed as such has been followed, as is evidently clear from the proceedings of the allotment, which would go on to show that for Booth No. 1, the petitioner, as such had quoted Rs.52,000/- plus 18% GST, but on account of having been submitted 1st preference for booth No. 2, the allotment had been made in favour of Mr. Vinay Chopra i.e. respondent No. 4 (L-2), who 4 2026:HHC:19042 had quoted Rs.50,001/- plus 18% GST. The petitioner having bidding Rs. 52,000/- plus 18% GST had been given allotment of Booth No. 2 as per the 1st preference. 9. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that apparently it is an after-thought at the hand of the petitioner and for the reasons best known to him, may be for the location of the shop and sale prospect as such, therefore, the procedure which has been followed by the respondents does not suffer from any infirmity, which warrants exercise of judicial review. 10. Resultantly, the present petition is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any. (G. S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin C. Negi) 21st May, 2026 Judge (sanjeev)