HC restrains 3rd Party from subletting of multiple parking projects in Shimla
Photo used for indicative purpose only
Shimla, July 16 Himachal Pradesh High Court has directed the authorities to maintain status quo over two contracts for the operation and maintenance of multi-level parking facilities in Shimla and restrained them from awarding the projects to any third party until further orders.
The order was passed by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin C. Negi while hearing a writ petition filed by M/s Tanishqa Infratech challenging the withdrawal of the Letter of Award (LoA) issued in its favour. The matter has been listed for further hearing on July 27.
According to the court proceedings, the petitioner was awarded a contract on May 19, 2026, for the operation and maintenance of multi-level parking facilities at the New OPD Block of IGMC, Auckland Tunnel and opposite the IGMC Auditorium in Shimla under the Public-Private Partnership (PPP) mode for a period of 10 years
A related petition concerns parking facilities at Bangla Colony, Totu, Sankat Mochan Temple, Vikasnagar and the SDM Complex at Kasumpti.
Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the Letter of Award required the successful bidder to incorporate a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) under the Companies Act before executing the operation and maintenance agreement.
The petitioner, being a proprietorship concern, had sought relaxation of this condition through a representation submitted on June 6, 2026, but the request was rejected by the authorities on June 16, stating that the requirement was mandatory.
The petitioner informed the court that after the rejection, it immediately initiated the incorporation process for the SPV and informed the respondents on June 25 that the process would be completed within seven days.
The company received the Certificate of Incorporation on June 30 and communicated the development to the authorities the same day. However, despite this, the Letter of Award was withdrawn on July 6 on the ground that the SPV had not been constituted within the stipulated timeline.
Also Read
Totu’s parking woes turn Shimla Airport road into a bottleneck
Counsel for the petitioner contended that the prescribed timeline was only directory in nature and that neither the Request for Proposal nor the Letter of Award provided for automatic withdrawal of the contract for non-compliance within that period.
It was further argued that the petitioner’s rights as the successful bidder could not have been extinguished in the manner adopted by the respondents. Reference was also made to the return of the performance bank guarantees.
After hearing the parties, the High Court issued notice to the respondents and directed that status quo be maintained regarding both contracts.
The Bench also observed that, considering the sequence of events, respondent No. 3 should obtain instructions on whether a fresh decision could be taken on the issue, particularly in view of a fresh representation submitted by the petitioner on July 9, 2026.
About the Author
