IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.13427 of 2024 Decided on: 30.03.2026 _________________________________________________________________ Lal Man ....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors . …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Ms. Anuja Mehta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y. P. S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Following order was passed in the matter on 17.03.2026:- “This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive prayers:- “(i) That a writ in nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued to the respondents thereby directing the respondents to make payment of the final bill submitted by the petitioner qua the work in question, within time bound period. (ii) That the respondents be also directed to pay interest to the petitioner on the amount of Rs.31,56,181/- payable at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of submission of bill on 2022 to till date of actual payment of amount.” 2. Petitioner has claimed payment towards the bills submitted by him qua the work completed against the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes - 2 - contracts awarded to him. According to the petitioner, the respondents had prepared final bill of the petitioner for Rs.31,56,181/-, but the amount was not released to the petitioner. 3. The respondents in their reply have raised some disputes on facts as under:- “5. That the para 5 (wrongly mentioned as para No.3) of the petition are admitted to the extent of issuing notice inviting tender for the work of construction on different dates as alleged in this para and rest of the contents are wrong hence denied. However, it is submitted that the petitioner’s claim of completing the work and submitting the bill for Rs.31,56,181/- is not entirely accurate. The respondents further submit that while the petitioner was awarded the contract for the work, the payment could not be made due to non- availability of funds. The respondents are willing to make the payment as soon as the funds are available. Regarding the agreement No.525, 440, 441 and MB No.1855, 1845, the respondents submit that the petitioner has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement, which has resulted in the delay in payment. In view of the above, the respondents pray that the writ petition be dismissed with costs, as the petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference by this Hon'ble Court.” The reply further states that due and admissible payments to the petitioner, however, could not be made as the funds were not readily available with the respondents. 4. The respondents though in the reply admitted that final bill of Rs.31,56,181/- was prepared in petitioner’s favour, but in the instructions dated 17.03.2026 now placed on record, it has been mentioned that the petitioner was awarded three works under agreement Nos.525 of 2021-22, 440 of 2022-23 and 441 of 2022-23, amounting to Rs.31,56,181/-, but the petitioner had executed the works at site for an amount of Rs.26,12,176/-. That after making statutory deductions and recoveries, the net payable amount comes to Rs.21,52,594/-; That Rs.6,00,000/- had - 3 - already been paid to the petitioner during the year 2022-23 and the balance amounting to Rs.15,52,594/- was paid to him under RTGS on 22.11.2025; That no further amount remains to be paid to the petitioner on account of work done by him against the above three works. 5. The instructions placed on record by the respondents appear to be at variance with para 8 of the reply, in terms of which, the respondents had prepared the final bill of Rs.31,56,181/- in favour of the petitioner. Let the respondents file an affidavit clarifying the above position. List on 30.03.2026, when respondent No.4 shall remain present in the Court.” 2. Pursuant to above, Sh. Anshuman Soni, Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division Dharampur, District Mandi, (respondent No.4) has attended today’s hearing. 3. The Superintending Engineer, HPPWD Division Dharampur, District Mandi, has also filed an affidavit in compliance to the order dated 17.03.2026. As per this affidavit, the amount of Rs. 31,56,181/- figuring in the reply filed by the respondents, represents aggregate value of works awarded to the petitioner under the agreement in question; The amount pertains only to the contractual value of works awarded and not the value of work actually executed or the - 4 - final amount payable to the petitioner. Further, according to the respondents, petitioner has not executed the works to the full extent of the awarded amount. The actual execution of work recorded in the measurement book was only to the extent of Rs.26,12,176/- In accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement including the applicable statutory deductions, recoveries and retentions towards defect liability period/security the net admissible amount payable to the petitioner was worked out to Rs. 21,52,594/-. Out of this admissible amount, a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- had been paid to the petitioner during financial year 2022-23 and remaining balance amount of Rs.15,52,594/- was released on 22.12.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner acknowledges the above position. 5. In view of the affidavit filed by the respondents pursuant to the order dated 17.03.2026, clarifying the factual position and the stand taken in the reply, present writ petition is deposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy for the redressal of his surviving grievances, if any, including on disputed question of facts, in - 5 - accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge March 30, 2026 R.Atal