S Gopal Puri
Kangra
The matter concerning the Dharamshala campus of the Central University was listed today on 02/06/2026 before the Hon’ble Chief Justice Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in CWPIL No. 20 of 2025, Atul Bhardwaj vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others.
During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner Nitya Sharma, submitted that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, namely the State of Himachal Pradesh and the Department of Higher Education, had themselves admitted in their reply affidavit that the transfer process relating to the Dharamshala campus is still in progress and that the amount of approximately ₹30 crore required for the project is still under consideration. The affidavit further states that the matter has been taken up with the Finance and Planning Departments for allocation of funds and that further steps are yet to be taken.
Sharma argued that the affidavit filed by the respondents contains only general assertions and reflects a shifting of responsibility. It merely provides future assurances by using expressions such as “under consideration” without disclosing any concrete timeline, responsibility matrix, present compliance status, expected completion date, or stage-wise progress of the project.
It was therefore submitted that, in the interest of justice, the Hon’ble Court may direct Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to file a detailed and consolidated status report indicating the present status of the Dharamshala campus project, the reasons for the non-deposit of approximately ₹30 crore, and the specific steps taken by the State Government after the grant of Stage-I approval.
Upon consideration of the submissions, the Hon’ble Chief Justice Bench directed the State Government to file a status report on affidavit, specifically disclosing the reasons for the delay in depositing the required funds and setting out the current status of the project. The respondents were granted a fixed period to place the said status report before the Court on or before the next date of hearing failing which a cost will be imposed.
During the proceedings, the Hon’ble Chief Justice also observed that the reply filed by the State Government was dated October 2025 and that, prima facie, no substantial progress appeared to have been made thereafter. The Court observed that, in the interest of justice, it was necessary to ascertain the present factual position through a fresh status report on affidavit reflecting the current reality of the matter.
