2025:HHC:18957 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No. 254 of 2025 a/w LPA Nos.255, 258 and 262 of 2025 Decided on: 05.06.2025 __________________________________________________________ LPA No.254 of 2025 Parveen Singh Bandhu ...Appellant Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents LPA No.255 of 2025 Rajender Kumar ...Appellant Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents LPA No.258 of 2025 Subhash Chand ...Appellant Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents LPA No.262 of 2025 Karam Chand ...Appellant Versus State of H.P. & 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(s): Mr. Vishwa Bhushan and Ms. Anuja Mehta, Advocates, in all the appeals. For the respondents: Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. 2025:HHC:18957 - 2 - G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral] The present set of appeals have been filed against the common judgment of learned Single Judge, whereby 10 writ petitions have been dismissed on 10.03.2025, the lead case of which was Civil Writ Petition No.2086 of 2025, titled Arun Thakur versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. 2. The given sum and substance of the case is that the appellants were Contractors, who had been allotted work by the respondents-State and had approached the writ Court seeking payment of their final bills submitted by them qua the work in question, within time bound period and interest was also sought, accordingly, at the rate of 18% from the date of submission of the bill on the amounts. 3. The learned Single Judge did not think it proper to call for the reply and relegated the appellants, as such, to their remedy to file Civil Suits or invoke arbitration clause in view of the fact that counsel for the State had submitted that the State did not admit that the amounts claimed were payable and resultantly the findings had been recorded by the learned Single Judge 2025:HHC:18957 - 3 - that the petitioners have to file a suit for recovery before the Civil Court and to append ad-valorem Court fee as such, to be claimed by approaching the Civil Court, which was being avoided. 4. Notice. Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 5. The judgments which have been relied upon passed by the Coordinate Bench’s, as such, however, were distinguished on the ground that there was no denial, as such to the amount as claimed in those set of cases. The judgments rendered by the Coordinate Bench in CWP No. 6039 of 2023, titled Deepak Manta Vs. State of H.P. & others and CWP No.7942 of 2021, titled Krishan Kumar Vs. State of H.P. & others have been relied upon to substantiate this contention. 6. The learned Single Judge did not deal with the judgments of the Apex Court in case titled ABL International Ltd. & anr. Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 553 and Civil Appeal No.6741 of 2024, titled Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour Vs. The Chief Executive Officer & Ors., 2025:HHC:18957 - 4 - wherein, it was held that merely one of the parties going to dispute the meaning of document on their part, would not make it disputed facts and bar the writ Court to exercise its jurisdiction as such and the writ Court would have jurisdiction for entertaining monetary claim on account of contractual obligation. The relevant observations on the said issue in ABL International Ltd. & anr. Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors read as under: “27 From the above discussion of ours, the following legal principles emerge as to the maintainability of a writ petition: (a) In an appropriate case, a writ petition as against a State or an instrumentality of a State arising out of a contractual obligation is maintainable. (b) Merely because some disputed questions of fact arise for consideration, same cannot be a ground to refuse to entertain a writ petition in all cases as a matter of rule. (c) A writ petition involving a consequential relief of monetary claim is also maintainable.” 7. In our considered opinion, there is nothing on record to show that the appellant(s), as such, who were seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus to the effect that the respondents be directed to make payment of the final bills, which would be clear from the prayer clause and thus also asking for interest on the amounts due as 2025:HHC:18957 - 5 - in Karam Chand’s case i.e. Rs.41,55,565/- was claimed and the interest @ 18% from the date of submission of the bills on 2022. However, there is nothing on record to show that any such demand had been raised on the State to make payment before approaching the writ Court. 8. It is settled principle that a writ of mandamus would only lie where the authorities have been duly approached at the first instance and there is denial of request made. It is thereafter only the petitioners- appellants would have right to agitate or approach this Court. In the absence of not having approached the authority at the first instance, we are of the considered opinion that writ petitions itself were not maintainable and for different reasons the learned Single Judge had come to the conclusion that where the parties had entered into an agreement the writ petitions, as such, before the writ Court were not maintainable. 9. The issue whether the matter was liable to be referred to the Civil Court or the Arbitrator, would even be subject to the decision, only if the State had denied on the basis of the request, which would have been made by 2025:HHC:18957 - 6 - the petitioners, as it was only in such circumstances, the writ Court would have come to the conclusion that the matter was to be referred to the Civil Court or the Arbitrator. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, primarily on the stand taken by the State in an order which would have been required to be passed in representation and it would also clarify the right of petitioners-appellants, as such, as to what is the next course of action, in pursuance to a speaking order having been passed, why did the petitioners not approach the State. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioners had done the same. 11. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the writ petitions were itself premature. However, keeping in view the fact that it is the case of the petitioners-appellants that they are Contractors and they have completed their work and the work has been measured and entered in the Measurement Book and the first and final bills have been prepared, as per the averments made, it would also be within the ambit of the writ Court to ask for the State as 2025:HHC:18957 - 7 - such the reason for denial of the payments. The same however, could have only be done, if the petitioners themselves would have firstly approached the respondents by way of notice or representation. In case the respondents have not acted upon the said legal notice or representation, the writ Court would have been called upon the respondents to file their reply or take necessary decision on the said representation. 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 2025:HHC:18957 - 8 - 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, 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 2025:HHC:18957 - 9 - 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. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge June 05, 2025 [himani/Shivender]