M/S Ambience Holiday Resorts Ltd v. The UOI and Others

( 2026:HHC:40908 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.16630 of 2026 Date of Decision:- 23.09.2026

M/s Ambience Holiday Resorts Limited ....Petitioner Versus Union of India and Others ....Respondents Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondents : Mr. Shyam Singh Chauhan, Central Government Counsel, for respondent Nos.1 & 2-Union of India. : Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent Nos.3 & 4-State. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice

(Oral).

In the present writ petition, letters dated 30.07.2024 (Annexure P-12) and 09.11.2023 (Annexure P-13) are subject matter of challenge, whereby the petitioner's case for registration of its project was rejected under the Industrial Development Scheme, 2017. Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶2Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in similar circumstances in LPA No.169 of 2025, titled as Union of India & another Vs. Atul Sharma and others alongwith connected matters, decided on 16.07.2025, the order passed by the learned Single Judge was upheld, whereby the consideration had to be done in terms of the Policy dated

23.04.2018. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:- "10. Learned Single Judge found that the appellant Union of India could not in the first set of cases, deny the fact that the applications had been forwarded during currency of the Scheme and therefore, consideration had not been done. In such circumstances, he came to the conclusion that at least the consideration had to be made as per the terms of the policy dated 23.04.2018 (Annexure P-1). Thus, we cannot find any fault as such with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge to this extent.

¶11Counsel for Union of India also admits that since each and every individual case will have to be considered within the parameters of the said policy, it would be appropriate that a decision making is done by the Empowered Committee by fixing a time frame as such. We are also of the considered opinion that the findings as such that the consideration was to be done by the Empowered Committee, thus cannot be faulted in any manner, once it is the case of the State also that they had forwarded their cases to the Empowered Committee. If that is so, then the decision making as such had to be done as per the parameters of the notification and as noticed above, has now been done in one case though, the rejection is here.

¶12In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that present LPAs are liable to be disposed of in the above terms along with writ petitions that each and every individual case has to be considered afresh by the Empowered Committee. Let the said exercise be done within a period of four months from today. Needless to say that it will be open to the applicants, as such, to seek their remedy in accordance with law in case there is rejection of their case.

¶13All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly."

¶3Keeping in view the fact that the judgment in the aforesaid LPA has further been upheld by the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.65239/2025, titled as Union of India & another Vs. Atul Sharma & others, on 30.01.2026, we dispose of the present petition, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

¶4Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia)

Chief Justice

(Bipin Chander Negi)

Judge 23rd September, 2026 (Munish Thakur)