Himachal Pradesh High Court
Eih Limited & Others vs . State Of H.P. & Others on 18 November, 2023
Author: Satyen Vaidya
Bench: Satyen Vaidya
EIH Limited & others vs. State of H.P. & others .
Ext. Pet. No. 5 of 2023 a/w Ext.
Pet. No. 19 of 2023 18.11.2023 Present: Mr. R. L. Sood, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arjun Lall and Mr. Aakash Thakur, Advocates, for the applicants.
Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with of Mr. R. K. Negi, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer, for the non-applicants.
rt OMP No. 562/2023 in Ex. Pet. No. 5/2023 On mention, the application has been taken up.
Notice. Mr. R. K. Negi, learned Additional Advocate General appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the non-applicants.
By way of instant application, prayers have been made to the following effects:-
"a) Clarify that the directions as contained in paras 35 read in conjunction with sub para 1 of para 38 of the impugned order dated 17.11.2023 do not permit or authorize the State of H.P. or any of its officials to take possession of the Hotel Wildflower Hall, Chhabra Shimla, or to interfere in the peaceful possession, use, occupation, running and management of the hotel
b) Restrain the respondent State from interfering in the peaceful use occupation and possession of property known as Hotel Wildflower Hall, Chhabra, Shimla and order ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2023 20:34:20 :::CIS status quo ante to 17.11.2023 in respect of .
the possession, use, occupation, running and management of the hotel.
c) Allow any other relief deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court in favour of the petitioners/ applicants and against the respondent State of Himachal Pradesh."
of It is submitted on behalf of the applicants that the filing of application has been necessitated on rt account of sudden issuance of executive order dated 17.11.2023 (Annexure A-2) and consequent interference in the day to day management, control and possession of the hotel property by the respondent State through its officials. It is submitted that this Court on 17.11.2023 has passed an order, whereby the objections in Execution Petition No. 5 of 2023 and Execution Petition 19 of 2023 have been decided. The State has been granted an opportunity to reveal its option whether it intends to resume the property by taking its possession in terms of the award, besides other directions issued vide the aforesaid order. The compliance has been sought by this Court on 15.12.2023.
Learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. R. K. Negi, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer has submitted that the State has ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2023 20:34:20 :::CIS engaged Sh. Dhruv Mehta, Senior Advocate to .
represent in the instant cases and he is not immediately available. A Request has also been made on behalf of Sh. Dhruv Mehta, Senior Advocate that he be permitted to represent through video conferencing of today itself or the cases may be adjourned to 21.11.2023, on which date, he will be available either rt personally or through video conferencing.
It is Saturday and a non judicial working day. It is already 2.45. pm and hence it will not be possible to hold the hearing of the case today by allowing Sh. Dhruv Mehta, Senior Advocate to represent through video conferencing.
List the matter on 21.11.2023. Reply be also filed on or before the next date, if so advised.
This Court while deciding the objections of the parties vide order dated 17.11.2023 has specifically required the State to reveal its option whether the State intends to resume the property by taking its possession in terms of the award or not. The State has been granted time for such purpose till 15.12.2023 but the State officials are stated to have taken action by issuance of executive order dated 17.11.2023 (Annexure A-2) and as a consequence thereof have initiated action by visiting the hotel premises in the ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2023 20:34:20 :::CIS morning of 18.11.2023 i.e. today. Since the executions .
petitions filed by both the sides are still pending before this Court, the Award passed by the learned Arbitrator has to be executed in terms of the directions passed by this Court and not by the parties themselves. In this of view of the matter, further execution of order dated 17.11.2023 (Annexure A-2) shall remain stayed till rt further orders. It is clarified that the respondent State shall not interfere in the day to day management and possession of the hotel.
An authenticated copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties by the Court Master of this Court.
(Satyen Vaidya) Judge 18th November, 2023 (kck) ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2023 20:34:20 :::CIS