Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/18354/2026 on 13 October 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 18354 of 2026
Date of Decision: 13.10.2026 ______________________________________________________________ M/s Giula Sand Stone and Stone Crusher
……...Petitioners
Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
…....Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioners: Mr. Nand Lal Thakur & Mr. Nitin Rishi, Advocates.
For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondents-State.
Mr. Dhiraj Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.5.
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Precisely, the case of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that though consent to operate the crusher came to be granted to the petitioner on 24.05.2023, but yet by way of the impugned demand notice dated 04.12.2023 (Annexure P-7), a sum of Rs. 14,88,000/- is being demanded unauthorisedly as dead rent for the period commencing from 20.07.2022 to 19.07.2027.
2. While putting in appearance on behalf of the respondents, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, states that since lease deed was executed on 20.07.2022 and thereafter consent to establish was granted on 22.09.2022, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents while issuing demand notice dated 04.12.2023, thereby High Court of H.P. ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 17:23:37 :::CIS
2 claiming dead rent for the period from 20.07.2022 to 19.07.2027. Learned Deputy Advocate General further states that issue sought to be raised in the instant petition was never raised before the competent authority. He states that had petitioner approached the department by way of a representation in the first instance, the same would have been decided in accordance with law.
3. In the aforesaid background, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition, with liberty to file a comprehensive representation before the competent authority seeking refund of the amount deposited pursuant to the impugned demand notice, with further direction to the respondents to decide the same expeditiously.
4. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is dismissed as withdrawn, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation, if not already filed, for redressal of his grievances, with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to decide the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders.
5. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of along with pending applications, if any.
October 13, 2026
(Sandeep Sharma), (sunil)
Judge High Court of H.P. ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 17:23:37 :::CIS