IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No. 8398 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) Consequently, issue a writ of certiorari quashing the proceedings of the State Level Committee meeting held on 30.01.2014 and order dated 20.02.2014 passed by the respondent No.2 rejecting the Central transport subsidy claim of the petitioner company as being unfair, unreasonable, in frustration of the object and purposes of the scheme and thus violative o f Article14 of the Constitution. f (D) Issue a writ of moandamus directing the respondents to release the amount of subsidy for the first two quarters, namely, April- June, 2010 amounting to ₹19,12,163.27/- tand July- September, 2010 amounting to ₹12,76,990.81/- forthwith; and alongwith due compensation in terms of interest 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 meeting 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 facts & after detailed deliberations and discussions on the submissions by the petitioner, as well as from the perusal of official record placed before the committee, it was agreed that conditions mentioned in the MoU does not pertain to the subje ct matter under consideration. It is clear that theref is no mention of the company being under the oboligation of converting 50% of the total clinker into cement within the State and hence the MoU itself does not deprive the petitioner from in any way availing transport subsidy under GoI’s Transport Subsidy Scheme, 1971. Hence, it was decided to direct the Commissioner (Industries) to convened SLC meeting of Transport Subsidy Scheme in the matter under reference and consider the claim(s) of petitioner in accorodance with the guidelines of GoI’s Transport Subsidy Scheme, 1971.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner su