HIMACHAL PRADESH TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD vs UNION OF INDIA

2026:HHC:47192-DB
High Court of H.P.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.4839 of 2020
Date of Decision: 26.10.2026
________________________________________________________________________
Himachal Pradesh Tourism
Development Corporation Limited ....Petitioner

Versus

Union of India & others ......Respondents
Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Yogesh Jaswal, Judge

Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
________________________________________________________________________

For the petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Janak Raj, Central Government
Counsel, for respondent No.1

Mr. Vijay Arora, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Hitansh Raj, Advocate, for respondents
No.2 & 3.
_________________________________________________________________
Ajay Mohan Goel, J. (Oral)

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia
prayed for the following reliefs:-
(a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the
Designated Committee (Respondent No.3) to consider the
petitioners case under litigation since the petitioner falls
under the category of litigation as per the provisions of
section 121(c) of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute
::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 17:21:15 :::CIS

2026:HHC:47192-DB
-2-
High Court of H.P.
Resolution) Scheme, 2019 and the appeal filed by the
petitioner was within time period.
(b) Direct the Respondents No.3 to refund a sum of
Rs.8,55,511/- being collected without the authority of
law.
2. Petitioner herein is the Himachal Pradesh Tourism
Development Corporation. The contention of the petitioner is that it
applied for the benefit of a scheme that is Sabka Vishwas (Legacy
Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the 2019
Scheme), which was published in the Finance Act, 2019. As per the
petitioner, in terms of the 2019 Scheme, a party could have applied for
the benefit thereof either on account of “amount in arrears” or under the
category of “litigation”. Accordingly, the petitioner had applied under the
category within “litigation” and the consideration of the case of the
petitioner vide Annexure P-7 as one in the category of “amount in
arrears” is not justifiable in law.
3. Mr. Rakesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that in the present case a show notice dated 20.04.2018 was
issued to the Corporation, which was replied to by the Corporation and
which culminated into an order dated 19.06.2019, creating a demand of
Rs. 36,82,360/- with 100% penalty . Against this order, the petitioner
filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority on 06.09.2019 and it also
applied under the 2019 Scheme for the benefit thereof. However, rather
than dealing with the case of the petitioner as one under the “litigation”
::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 17:21:15 :::CIS

2026:HHC:47192-DB
-3-
High Court of H.P.
category, the same was dealt with under the “arrears” category, which
has resulted in great injustice to the Corporation. Accordingly, he has
prayed that the present petition be allowed.
4. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
respondents No.2 and 3 argued that the present writ petition is not
maintainable. He submits that there is no challenge to any order passed
by any Authority under the 2019 Scheme and in fact the petitioner-
Corporation acquiesced to the contents of Annexure P-7 order
13.01.2020 and deposited a sum of Rs 8,55,511/- in lieu of the demand,
which was raised in terms of order dated 19.06.2019 without any protest
etc and after depositing the amount in the month of February 2020, the
writ was filed in the month of August 2020, which was just an after
thought. Learned Senior counsel also submits that otherwise also as
the case of the petitioner was falling under the category of “amount in
arrears” it was rightly considered under the said category.
5. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as
also learned Senior counsel and having perused the pleadings as well
as the documents on record, we concur with the submission of the
learned Senior counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 that the present
writ petition does not hold any merit.
6. The petitioner approaching the Authority for the benefit of
the 2019 Scheme, is a matter of record. During the course of the
consideration of the case of the petitioner under the 2019 Policy, when
::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 17:21:15 :::CIS

2026:HHC:47192-DB
-4-
High Court of H.P.
the matter was listed before the Authority concerned on 13.01.2020, the
following order was passed :-
“Sh. Sushil Sharma, Accounts Officer, HPTDC, Shimla, H.P.
appeared for P.H. on 13.01.2020. He submitted that due to
sudden snowfall and bad road conditions he could not
appear for P.H on 10.01.2020. On being asked why they
have filed the declaration under litigation category, he
submitted that the SCN issued to them has been
adjudicated on 19.06.2019 and was under appeal ( i.e.
litigation category) as on 30.06.2019 & they have filed an
appeal before Commr(Appeals) on 06.09.2019. He further
submitted that as per instructions issued by the Board vide
para 2(v) OF Circular No.1073 dated 12.12.2019 that the
eligibility w.r.t such cases shall be as it was on the relevant
date i.e. 30.06.2019 therefore, their case falls under
Litigation category as it was under appeal period as on
30.06.2019. It was explained to him that their case squarely
falls as per definition & example given in Question No.6 of
the FAQ, where if an appeal has been filed after the cut off
date, the case would come under arrears category, after
giving the requisite declaration. He further submitted that
they will give an undertaking as per requirement under the
scheme after the prior approval of the management.”
7. This order is on record, appended with the petition as
Annexure P-7. A perusal of this order demonstrates that it was in terms
thereof that the Authority negated the contention of the petitioner-
Corporation that its case was covered under the “litigation” category and
observed that the same was covered under the “amount in arrears”
::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 17:21:15 :::CIS

2026:HHC:47192-DB
-5-
High Court of H.P.
category. According to us, cause of action, if any, accrued to the
Corporation, when this order was passed, but we find that this order was
never assailed by the Corporation. In fact, we find that there is no
challenge to this order even in the present writ petition. Not only this, as
was submitted by the learned Senior counsel appearing for respondents
No.2 and 3, the Corporation abided by the observations, which were
contained in order dated 13.01.2020 and deposited an amount of
Rs.8,55,511/- which was demanded from the Corporation by the
Authority in terms of the 2019 Scheme by treating the case of the
petitioner to be under the “amount in arrears” category. We do not find
from the material placed on record that the deposition of the said amount
was made by the Corporation under any kind of protest.
8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the petitioner had no option but to deposit this amount does not satisfy
us for the reason that the amount, deposited by the Corporation was not
in any proceeding which was initiated against the Corporation by the
Authority, which can be termed as a demand/punitive proceeding, but
it was in the course of a proceeding, which enunciated from the
application/request made by the petitioner-Corporation for consideration
of its case under the 2019 Scheme. It is also a matter of record that the
present petition was filed in the month of October 2020 without there
being any averment made in the writ petition as to why the petitioner
could not approach the Court immediately after the deposition of the
::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 17:21:15 :::CIS

2026:HHC:47192-DB
-6-
High Court of H.P.
amount, in case the petitioner was indeed aggrieved by the demand
falling under the “amount in arrears” category. The contention of the
learned counsel that the same was on account of the Covid Pandemic,
is not borne out from the petition because there is no averment made in
this regard in the writ petition.
9. Therefore, in light of the above discussion as the petitioner-
Corporation abided by the order that was passed by the Authority on
13.01.2020, which has gone unchallenged and deposited the requisite
amount, which it was called upon to pay under the “ amount in arrears”
category without any protest etc, the petition has no merit and is
dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge


(Yogesh Jaswal)
Judge
October 26, 2026
(meera)
::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 17:21:15 :::CIS