2025:HHC:19790 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 8406 of 2025. Decided on : 25.06.2025 Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ranaik. …Petitioner Versus Deputy Collector, Shimla and another. …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Suneet Goel, Senior Advocate, with M/s Vivek Negi and Vishwas Kaushal, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No.1. Mr. Ajeet Pal Singh Jaswal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:- “a. Issue a Writ of Mandamus to the Tehsildar of the office of Respondent No.1 to stamp the photocopy of the duly verified Work Order No. 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:19790 9300000552 dated 23.03.2017.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 issued a Work Order in favour of the petitioner for the purpose of carrying out the foundation work of 220 KV double circuit from Snail to GIS Switching Sub Station, at Hatkoti in District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. The Contract entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.2 contained an Arbitration Clause i.e. Clause No. 20.3, which envisaged that in the event of any dispute between the parties the matter shall be referred for arbitration. 3. According to the petitioner, a dispute arose between the parties and on an application filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Arbitration of Conciliation Act before the High Court of Delhi. The High Court in terms of Annexure P-2 appended with the petition, directed Delhi International Arbitration Centre to appoint a Sole Arbitrator from the Panel of Arbitrators to adjudicate the dispute between the parties, which has arisen under the Work Order. Thereafter, the matter was registered by the Delhi International Arbitration Centre and Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Senior Advocate, was appointed as an 3 2025:HHC:19790 Arbitrator, on 01.04.2023. 4. As per the petitioner, in the light of the fact that the Work Order entered into between the parties, which contains the Arbitration Clause/Work Order, was not stamped at the time when the same was entered into and subsequently occasion arose for the stamping thereof in terms of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under A&C Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, In re, (2024) 6 SCC 1, the petitioner approached respondent No.1 for the purpose of the stamping of the Work Order. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite the fact that there is no opposition to the stamping of the Work Order by respondent No.2, needful is not being done by respondent No.1. 6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Advocate General submitted that in terms of the reply filed by respondent No.1, the application submitted by the petitioner for stamping/attestation of the document, is addressed to Executive Magistrate (R/2), Shimla and the same has not been marked by any Authority of the Office of Deputy Commissioner 4 2025:HHC:19790 and due to this it could not ascertained as to, to whom the same was presented. He further submitted that though it is the contention of the petitioner that Deputy Collector has expressed his inability to stamp the Work Order but there is no such designated post in the Office. 7. Be that as it may, as it is not much in dispute that the Work Order has to be stamped in accordance with law and the parties to the Work Order have no objection in this regard, interest of justice would be served, in case, Collector, Shimla is directed to ensure that the Work Order is stamped by the Authority, whosoever is competent to do the needful. 8. Accordingly, with these observations, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioner shall present the order passed by this Court today before the Collector, Shimla, within a period of one week from today and thereafter, the matter shall be marked by the Collector to the Officer concerned or he may do the needful himself and for this purpose, he may fix a date, qua which respondent No.2 be also intimated through its counsel Mr. Ajit Singh Jaswal. Needful be positively within a period of two weeks, as from the date when 5 2025:HHC:19790 this order is presented by the petitioner before the Collector, Shimla. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge June 25, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)