The Himachal Pradesh High Court reaffirms that all individual applications forwarded during the currency of a notified government scheme must be considered afresh by the Empowered Committee under the scheme’s policy, regardless of prior delay or non-consideration. This judgment follows and reiterates the precedent set in an earlier Division Bench decision, cementing the legal position for similar cases and binding all subordinate courts and authorities in Himachal Pradesh.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/16197/2025 of TARA SOLAR ENERGY Vs UOI AND OTHERS |
| CNR | HPHC010622242025 |
| Date of Registration | 13-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JIYA LAL BHARDWAJ (concurring) |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Bench | Division Bench: Chief Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia and Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority within territorial jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms precedent set in LPA No. 169 of 2025 (Union of India & Anr. v. Atul Sharma & Ors.) |
| Type of Law | Administrative law; Government policy implementation |
| Questions of Law | Whether authorities are bound to consider applications forwarded during the currency of a government scheme as per its policy. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon | LPA No. 169 of 2025 (Union of India & Anr. v. Atul Sharma & Ors.) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Deference to established judgment covering identical questions; policy adherence, imperative of procedural fairness. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Parties agreed that the earlier Division Bench decision fully covers the present matter and the writ petition should be disposed of in same terms. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities in Himachal Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering similar policy-related administrative law questions |
| Follows | LPA No. 169 of 2025 (Union of India & Anr. v. Atul Sharma & Ors.) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that authorities must consider all pending applications forwarded during the currency of a government scheme strictly under the scheme’s policy parameters.
- Clarifies that delay in consideration or earlier non-disposal does not bar substantive consideration; each case must be freshly and fairly examined.
- Specifies a requirement that the Empowered Committee complete the process within a fixed timeframe (four months).
- Expressly preserves applicants’ right to legal remedies if their application is rejected.
- Lawyers may confidently cite this judgment and the earlier Division Bench decision as binding authority for similar cases involving non-consideration of policy-period applications.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Division Bench noted that both parties’ counsel agreed that the controversy was covered by the earlier Division Bench judgment in LPA No. 169 of 2025.
- The cited judgment held that applications forwarded during the operative period of the scheme could not be denied consideration, notwithstanding prior administrative delay or omission.
- The previous court determined that each case required individual examination by the Empowered Committee in accordance with the dated policy (23.04.2018), and this process was mandatory.
- The court emphasized procedural fairness, directing that decisions must be made within a specified period, and explicitly confirmed the right of rejected applicants to pursue further remedies.
- By fully adopting the prior Division Bench reasoning and direction, the present Bench disposed of the matter on identical terms, cementing the legal obligation for fair and timely policy-linked application processing.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Contended that the present case was fully covered by the previously decided Division Bench judgment.
- Sought similar relief as granted in LPA No. 169 of 2025.
Respondents
- Conceded that the matter at hand was governed by the reasoning and conclusions of the earlier Division Bench decision.
- Raised no objection to disposing of the writ petition on the same terms as previously decided cases.
Factual Background
The petitioner submitted its application under a government policy. Both sides agreed that the facts and legal issues were identical to those in an earlier Division Bench case where applications had been forwarded during the active period of a scheme but were not considered. No distinct factual dispute remained; the issue centered solely on legal and procedural compliance with the scheme’s policy.
Statutory Analysis
- The court’s reasoning and directions centered on compliance with the terms of the government policy dated 23.04.2018.
- Consideration of applications as per “parameters of the notification” was mandated.
- The court referred to the administrative requirement of Empowered Committee review for policy applications, not to a statutory provision per se, but rather adherence to the policy/notification.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
- Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj concurred with the Chief Justice.
- No separate dissenting or concurring opinion containing additional reasoning was issued.
Procedural Innovations
- The court reiterated the innovation set in the prior judgment: imposing a specific timeframe (four months) for the Empowered Committee to consider all applications under the policy.
- Stated that all rejected applicants retain their ordinary legal remedies, ensuring no denial of further recourse.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms an existing binding Division Bench holding from LPA No. 169 of 2025 regarding procedural requirements for scheme-period applications.