( 2025:HHC:28535 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA LPA No. 290 of 2025 Date of Decision: 22.08.2025 ____________________________________________________ Vinod Kumar ....Appellant Versus State of H.P and others …Respondents _____________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Appellant: Ms. Anuja, Advocate for Mr.Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr.Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) Challenge in the present appeal is to the order passed on 10.03.2025 by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 2078 of 2025 titled Vinod Kumar vs. State of H.P and others which was decided alongwith CWP No. 2086 of 2025 titled Arun Thakur vs. State of H.P and others and 9 connected matters. 2. Counsels submit that the other similar matters being LPA No. 260, 261 and 295 of 2025 were decided by this Court on 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 11.07.2025, giving liberty as such to the petitioners to submit their claims before the authority and the State was to decide the representation. The order passed in the said appeals 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. 2. 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 3 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, 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 4 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. “ 3. Notice. Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice for the respondents. 4. Keeping in view the above, we are of the opinion that these matters are squarely covered by the aforesaid observations and the present appeals are disposed of in the above terms. 5. At this stage, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that there is an obligation upon the writ petitioners- appellants to submit their claim within two weeks before the Authorities, but the State has not been put to any time-frame to decide their claim. Accordingly, we fix the time-frame to decide the representation(s) of the writ petitioners-appellants, within two months, from the date of the receipt of the representation(s). 6. Needless to say that the said time-frame shall also apply in the aforesaid matters, which have already been disposed of. 7. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.” 3. Counsel for the State does not dispute the said fact. 4. Therefore, the petition stands disposed of in the same terms. It is further clarified that on the receipt of the said representation, the State will also be bound as such to decide the said representation within a period of two months as directed thereafter in similar cases. 5 5. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice 22nd August, 2025 ( Ranjan Sharma ) (priti) Judge