2025:HHC:29060 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No.293 of 2025 Decided on:26.08.2025 __________________________________________________________ Desh Raj ...Appellant. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?. For the appellant: Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice[Oral] The present Letters Patent Appeal is arising out of the judgment dated 10.03.2025, whereby, the writ petition of the present appellant i.e. CWP No.2110 of 2025, titled Desh Raj versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others was dismissed with liberty to approach the Civil Court or invoke Arbitration Clause. 2. The said writ petition was decided along with 9 other cases. The lead case was CWP No.2086 of 2025, titled Arun Thakur versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:29060 - 2 - 3. In a Bunch of appeals preferred by Ramesh Kumar, Arun Kumar and Manoj Kumar, passed in LPA Nos.260, 261 and 295 of 2025, decided on 11.07.2025, we had accordingly modified the order. The said order reads as under: “The present appeals are directed against the order dated 10.03.2025 of the learned Single Judge, whereby while deciding 10 writ petitions, the lead case of which was CWP No. 2086 of 2025, title Arun Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others, the Contractors as such were given liberty to file Civil Suits/invoke Arbitration Clause for the recovery of the amounts due. On an earlier occasion, while considering LPAs No. 254, 255, 258 & 262 of 2025, on 05.06.2025, which had arisen out of the same judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, the lead case of which was LPA No. 254 of 2025, title Parveen Singh Bandhu Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others, we had directed that in the absence of any representation(s) as such and non-serving of the legal notice(s) upon the respondents-State, the writ petitions were not maintainable. However, we had further directed that the writ petitioners could approach the respondents by filing representation(s) by serving legal notice(s), within two weeks and thereafter, a reasoned order was to be passed within two weeks by the Authorities. The relevant portion of the order dated 05.06.2025, passed in LPA No. 254 of 2025 and other connected matters, reads as under:- “12. In view of above, it is also the writ petitioners- appellants who have jumped the gun and approached the Court in the first instance, without approaching the State for their necessary redressal and could have on account of not deciding the representation. However, on non-decision of the legal notice they could have approached the writ Court either for expeditious decision on the same, in case the State had not responded to the same. The said exercise has not been conducted. 13. We do not find any plausible reason as such, to interfere to that extent with the order of learned Single Judge. However, to balance the equity, as such, between the parties specially if Contractors have done part of their work then they would be entitled to, at least, some payment and only if there is a dispute regarding their work as such, having not been completed either in time or not up to the specifications, 2025:HHC:29060 - 3 - the State would then be in a position to fall back on its defence. 14. In such circumstances, we balance the interest of the parties, and in order to avoid arbitrary action by the State, we deem it fit to dispose of these appeals with liberty to the petitioners-appellants to approach the respondents-State by filing representation(s) or serving legal notices upon them to put forth their claim, within a period of two weeks from the receipt of the certified copies. 15. On receipt of the said representation(s), the competent authority of the respondents shall take a call on the said legal notice(s) and pass a reasoned order which shall be communicated to the appellants whether they are entitled to the payment of said amount or not. In case competent authority finds that wherever payments are due, necessary action will be taken on the said representation(s) and the amount shall be disbursed to them, leaving it open to the parties to agitate for their grievances, in accordance with law, regarding the balance payments. 16. With the aforesaid observations, the present appeal(s) are disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.” 4. Notice. Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, accepts notice for the respondents. 5. Keeping in view the above, we are of the opinion that the matter is squarely covered by the aforesaid observations and the present appeal is disposed of in the above terms. 6. At this stage, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that since there is an obligation upon the writ petitioner-appellant to submit his claim within two weeks before the Authorities, but the State has not 2025:HHC:29060 - 4 - been put to any time-frame to decide his claim. Accordingly, we fix the time-frame to decide the representation(s) of the writ petitioner- appellant, within two months, from the date of receipt thereof. 7. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge 26th August, 2025 [himani/shivender]