IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.5704 of 2014 Decided on: 13.03.2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

M/s Ambuja Cements Limited …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?

For the Petitioner: Mr. Kulwant Chauhan, Advocate.

Mr. Virender Thakur, Dy. Manager o(Legal) in person.

For the Respondents: Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No. 1, 2 and 4.

Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Senior Panel Counsel for respondent No.3.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:

“(A) Declare that the factors taken into account by the State Level Committee in its proceedings, dated 30.01.2014, communicated by order, dated 20.02.2014, by respondent No.2 for purposes of rejection of the petitioner’s claim are unreasonable, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(B) Declare that the registration obtained by the petitioner company following due process of law shall be sufficient for the purposes of grant of transport subsidy under the scheme in question from the period

Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

with effect from commencement of commercial production and that no exceptions can be made in this regard.

(C) Declare that the recommendations/suggestions of State Level Committee, that the transport subsidy be confined only to 50% of the clinker used for conversion to cement within the State of H.P. is illegal, unwarranted and without jurisdiction.

(D) Consequently, issue a writ of certiorari quashing the proceedings of the State Level C ommittee meeting held on 30.01.2014 and order datfed 20.02.2014 passed by the respondent No.2 rejeocting the Central transport subsidy claim of the petitioner company as being unfair, unreasonable, in frustration of the object and purposes of the scheme and thtus violative of Article14 of the Constitution.

(E) Declare that sub paragraphs 14 and 15 of para 6 of the Transport Subsidy Scheme, dated 23.07.1971, as amended from time, in so far as conferring unguided discretion on the respondents in the matter of registration of the eligible industrial units and the pCrocessing of claims by such industrial units, as illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

(F) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the amount of subsidy for the first two quarters, namely, April, 2010 to June, 2010 for an amount of ₹10,10,47,995/- and July, 2010 to September, 2010 for an amount of ₹7,43,82, 663/- forthwith; and alongwith due compensation in terms of interest @18% per annum from the due date till the date of actual payment, which amount has been illegally withheld by the respondents or otherwise for the delayed processing of the claims made by the petitioner.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner had also preferred CWP No.1586/2025 seeking directions to the respondent-State to decide representation dated 25.09.2025 as to whether MOU dated 01.03.2008 as part of Transport Subsidy Scheme, 1971 or checklist issued by respondent No.3-UOI for scrutinizing the claims under Transport Subsidy Scheme, 1971. The writ petition was disposed of on 16.10.2025 with direction to State Government to consider and decide the representation within four weeks. Pursuant to directions issued, the respondents convened mfeeting of the Committee on 03.02.2026 and 18.02.2026. The Minutes of Meeting of the Committee have been incorporated at Annexure A-1 wherein following decision was arrived at by the Committee:-

“Decision of Committee:- In view of above mentioned faCcts & after detailed deliberations and discussions on the submissions by the petitioner, as well as from the p