Jairam Thakur Questions Peterhoff PPP Deal

Shimla, November 12: Leader of Opposition Jai Ram Thakur has accused Chief Minister Sukhvinder Singh Sukhu of misleading the public over the proposed transfer of Peterhoff under the PPP model, questioning the government’s handling of the state’s valuable properties and its priorities on industrial development.

In a statement issued in Shimla, Thakur alleged that bookings at Peterhoff beyond November 26 had been stopped and that previously confirmed bookings were also being cancelled. Citing a letter dated January 29, 2026, he claimed that the government had initially directed that bookings should not be accepted beyond June 12, 2026, with the restriction subsequently extended. He challenged the government to make the relevant documents public.

Questioning the Chief Minister’s remarks on Peterhoff’s history, Thakur said the government should explain why state assets were being transferred rather than diverting attention through historical references. He stressed that Peterhoff was an important part of Himachal Pradesh’s heritage and identity, adding that although buildings could be destroyed by fire, history could not be erased. He also recalled that Peterhoff had been rebuilt after the fire.

Thakur alleged that the Sukhu government had repeatedly attempted to transfer HPTDC properties to people close to those in power. He also raised concerns over the Wildflower Hall lease and alleged attempts to facilitate exemptions under Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. Referring to the government’s two attempts to bring amendments to Section 118 in the Assembly, he questioned the circumstances surrounding these developments.

Turning to industrial policy, Thakur criticised the Chief Minister’s remarks on customised industrial packages, arguing that industrial incentives had played an important role in Himachal Pradesh’s economic growth. He said that if the government suspected irregularities in any package, it should conduct an investigation and take appropriate action instead of questioning the rationale of industrial incentives.

He pointed out that nearly 2,000 institutions had been closed by the present government and said it was free to review or withdraw industrial packages if wrongdoing was established.

Thakur said the Chief Minister’s approach to industrial land made him appear more like a real estate dealer than a state leader. He emphasised that industrial development was essential for economic growth, employment generation and the creation of supporting business ecosystems.

Highlighting the contribution of earlier industrial incentives, he said they had helped establish major industrial hubs and strengthened Himachal Pradesh’s position as a leading pharmaceutical manufacturing centre. These investments, he added, had generated employment beyond factory floors by supporting a wider network of businesses and services.

Thakur also accused the state government of compromising industrial growth by allegedly facilitating the sale of plots in the Medical Devices Park to people close to the government and creating hurdles in the progress of the Bulk Drug Park.

He further criticised the discontinuation of the Swavalamban Yojana, arguing that initiatives promoting self-employment and economic independence should have been strengthened.

Thakur said Himachal Pradesh needed policies that encouraged investment, industrial expansion and employment opportunities. He accused the Sukhu government of reversing earlier development gains and urged the Chief Minister to explain its decisions concerning public assets and the state’s industrial future.