IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No.60 of 2016 Decided on: 09.11.2023 Himachal Pradesh Ex-Servicemen Corporation, Hamirpur ...Appellant Versus District Magistrate, Solan & others ...Respondents Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Whether approved for reporting?

For the appellant: Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate.

For the respondent: Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocates General, Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Mr.Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocates General, for respondent no.1.

Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Advocate, for g respondent no.2.

Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate, for i respondent no.3.

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice (Oral)

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred by the appellant challenging the judgment dt. 15^th December, 2015 in CWP No.2881 of 2015 passed by the learned Single Judge.

3. In that Writ petition, the appellant had assailed the order dt. 4^th February, 2015 passed by the 1^st respondent. The said impugned order came to be passed pursuant to direction dt. 12^th November, 2013 issued by this Court in CWP No.4040 of 2013 filed by the 2^nd respondent contending that it was not getting due share of transportation work from the appellant, though it had demanded a separate quota, and previous orders passed by the 1^st respondent on 21.04.2010 fixing the quota of 30 trucks for the ex-

servicemen of Shimla, Solan and Kullu should be quashed.

4. In the order dt. 04.02.2015, the 1^st respondent reduced the allotment anod transportation work of the appellant insofar as it only relaCtes to the work of lifting of cement from Rauri Unit of the 3^rd respondent from the existing 10% to 7½ %, and the 2½ % quota so reduced was ordered to be alloted to the 2^nd respondent.

5. The appellant then filed CWP No.2881 of 2015 contending that the action of the 1^st respondent is arbitrary and discriminatory because the appellant Corporation had been constituted under a statute for the welfare of ex-servicemen in the entire State, and so the 2^nd respondent being only a Cooperative Society could not have been alloted 2½ % quota by reducing the same from the appellant share.

6. Learned Single Judge, after hearing all the parties opined that though the appellant is a “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, having been created under the H.P. Ex-Servicemen Corporation Act, 1979 for the welfare and economic upliftment of ex-servicemen, since the proposal to enroll the members of the 2^nd respondent society in the appellant and allot them work had been turned down by the appellant, and since the appellant cannot be granted any monopoly, and since even the members of the 2^nd respondent organization consist of war widows, injured soldiers whou are medically boarded out from the service and unemployeod ex-servicemen, they cannot be discriminated against, aCnd monopoly cannot be created in favour of the appellant. 7. Learned Single Judge also noted that the ex- servicemen of districts Kangra, Hamirpur, Bilaspur, Una and Solan were mainly dependent for their livelihood on the transportation work and therefore, in case the ex-servicemen of Solan district are given exclusive quota from the State ex-servicemen quota, it would not adversely affect the residents of other districts. He also rejected the plea of the appellant that out of 227 trucks engaged by the appellant with respondent no.3, 30 trucks involved are of ex- servicemen of Solan district. He also held that on the merits of the decision of respondent no.1, it appears that respondent no.2 had 145 members, whereas the appellant had 227 trucks and therefore, in such circumstances, even if the quota of the appellant is reduced from 10% to 7½% and quota of 2½% is granted to respondent no.2, no prejudice is caused.

8. We are completely in agreement with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge that no m