1 2025:HHC:22843 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA LPA No.335 of of 2025 Date of decision: 11.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Shalughat Bisthapit Kalyan Samiti ….Appellant Versus State of HP & others …Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the Appellant: Mr. Virender Thakur and Ms. Yamini, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral) After arguing for some time, learned Counsel for the appellant seeks to withdraw the appeal, since the learned Single Judge had observed that the disputes relating to contracts could not be agitated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the prayer in the writ petition had been 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 made for the enhanced amount of compensation to be paid by respondent No. 4, a Company and the matter could be adjudicated by the Civil Court. The relevant observations made by the learned Single Judge in the judgment under consideration dated 03.04.2025, passed in CWP No. 237 of 2029, title the Shalughat Bisthapit Kalyan Samiti & others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others, read as under. “25. From the aforesaid exposition of law it is quite evident that disputes relating to contracts cannot be agitated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If facts are disputed and require assessment of evidence, the correctness of which can only be tested satisfactorily by taking detailed evidence, involving examination and cross-examination of witnesses, the case could not be conveniently or satisfactorily decided in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. Such a suit would ordinarily be cognizable by the civil court. The High Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction would not entertain a petition either for specific performance of contract or for recovering 3 damages. Similarly, in the case at hand, learned counsel representing respondent no.4, submitted that since the dispute inter-se parties is born out of a contract, matter must be adjudicated by a civil court or in arbitration, if provided for in the contract.” Accordingly, he prays that the appellant be given liberty to avail the remedy, in accordance with law. He further prays that if the appellant files an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act for the time spent before this Court, the Civil Court will consider the same, in accordance with law. 2. Resultantly, we allow the withdrawal of the appeal in the above terms. 3. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice. July 11, 2025 (Ranjan Sharma) (hemlata) Judge.