Authority: High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla

Order Date: 07.07.2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Emerging Dehati Producer Company Limited (Petitioner) vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, including State Project Implementing Unit, Prakritik Kheti Khushhal Yojana (Respondent No.2).
  • Background: An MoU dated 06.04.2022 between the petitioner and Respondent No.2 established a joint‑venture captive outlet at Boileauganj, Shimla‑5 to sell natural and organic farming produce. Clause B stipulated that SPIU‑PK3Y would own the space and infrastructure, contribute fixed setup costs, while the petitioner would bear remaining fixed and recurring costs and retain all profits. Ownership was to be reviewed after four years. Clause L provided the outlet free of cost for the first four years, after which the petitioner must vacate; failure to vacate would allow SPIU‑PK3Y to seek court intervention and levy commercial rent.
  • MoU Expiry: The MoU’s validity ended on 06.04.2026.
  • Petitioner’s Relief Sought: Restoration of electricity and water supply to the captive outlet, quashing of letters dated 28.04.2026 (Annexure P‑9) and 09.06.2026 (Annexure P‑11) directing vacate and payment of charges, and a writ of mandamus to allow continued operation pending MoU renewal.
  • Prior Order: On 29.06.2026 (CWP No.10382/2026), the Court directed Respondent No.2 to decide the petitioner’s representation for MoU extension/renewal (Annexure P‑3 dated 05.03.2026, proposal Annexure P‑4, representation Annexure P‑10 dated 06.06.2026) within three weeks.
  • Petitioner’s Argument: The petitioner argued that despite the MoU expiry, Clause B & L allow review for extension on merits; the respondent’s letters did not consider the petitioner's proposal. The petitioner also relied on Madan Lal vs. State of H.P. to claim interim rights to water and electricity as essential under Article 21.
  • Court’s Reasoning: The Court observed that the earlier judgment (Emerging Dehati Producer) did not grant protection of possession; the MoU expressly gave ownership of the space to SPIU‑PK3Y and required vacating after four years. No direction was issued to protect possession, and the present case lacks a title dispute. The Madan Lal precedent was deemed inapplicable because it involved a residential encroachment with a pending title issue, whereas here the contractual period has simply expired. Consequently, the respondent’s action to disconnect utilities was not unlawful.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petition is dismissed; the respondent may disconnect electricity and water supplies to the captive outlet.
  • The earlier direction remains: Respondent No.2 must decide the petitioner’s representation for MoU renewal/extension within three weeks from the date of this order and communicate the decision.
  • The Court noted that if the MoU renewal is later approved, electricity and water connections would necessarily be reinstated.

Topics: Legal Dispute, Agriculture Retail