M/S Sunoxx International PVT LTD vs. The State Of Hp Others

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner and the State's counsel were in agreement. The petitioner was directed to approach the Director of Industries, Himachal Pradesh, within two weeks with all necessary documents, including the required approvals and licenses. Following this, the Director of Industries was to pass a speaking and reasoned order within seven days, considering the judgment dated 07.05.2025 in CWP No. 1667 of 2021 (M/s Kundlas Loh Udyog vs. State of H.P. and others). The petitioner was also granted liberty to avail appropriate remedies, including approaching the Court again, if any grievance remained unresolved. The Court disposed of the petition in terms of this agreement. The specific issues regarding the application of the previous judgment, the validity of clause 5B of the policy, and the direction for an enabling notification were not decided on merits but were to be addressed by the Director of Industries in light of the agreed procedure and the cited judgment.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Sunoxx International Pvt Ltd., filed a writ petition seeking directions to apply a previous High Court judgment (CWP 1667/2021) to its case, to quash a portion of the 2019 Industrial Policy, and to direct the State to issue an enabling notification for disbursing benefits. The State, through the Additional Advocate General, submitted a communication from the General Manager, Single Window Clearance Agency, Nalagarh. This communication indicated that the petitioner's application for a permanent name change from M/s Sunoxx International to M/s Sunoxx International Pvt. Ltd. was pending due to the non-submission of necessary regulatory approvals and licenses, including from GST authorities. Consequently, a substantial expansion report could not be acknowledged, impacting eligibility for incentives under the 2019 policy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ratio of the High Court's judgment dated 07.05.2025 in CWP 1667/2021 should apply mutatis-mutandis to the petitioner's case, as per the petitioner's prayer (A)? 2. Whether clause 5B of the 2019 Industrial Policy, along with its enabling rules, to the extent it states "Whichever is later", is against the Industrial Policy 2019 and Supreme Court judgments, as argued by the petitioner? 3. Whether the Respondent-State should be directed to issue an enabling notification under Clause 5B of the policy to disburse benefits under Clause 16(a) of the policy, as sought by the petitioner? Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner sought to apply a previous High Court judgment to its case and challenged a specific phrase in the 2019 Industrial Policy, arguing it was contrary to existing policy and Supreme Court pronouncements. They also sought a direction for the State to issue an enabling notification for benefits. Revenue/State's Contentions: The State, through the communication from the General Manager, Single Window Clearance Agency, highlighted that the petitioner had not submitted necessary regulatory approvals, including from GST authorities, which prevented the permanent acknowledgment of a name change and consequently impacted the processing of their substantial expansion report and eligibility for incentives under the 2019 policy.