IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.13418 of 2025 Decided on 08th October, 2025 Irshad …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Divya Raj Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Ms. Kamakshi Tarlokta, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court praying for the following relief:- “It is therefore, respectfully prayed that the present petition may very kindly be allowed and the impugned notice Annexure P-4, may very kindly be quashed and set aside and petitioner be granted further reasonable time/period for completing the executing of work which has been awarded.” 2 2. When the case was listed yesterday, the following order was passed:- “When this case was taken up for consideration today, the Court realizes that the petitioner has assailed Annexure P-4, which is order dated 05.05.2025, in terms whereof, the petitioner was directed to complete the work of the felling, conversion and carriage of timber granted to him within one week and he did not spell out in the petition that the tender which was allotted to him, stood rescinded by the Corporation 12.06.2025, which fact in fact has been disclosed by the respondent-Corporation in its reply. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for some time to ascertain this fact. List on 08.10.2025, as prayed for.” 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner on instruction submits that because the tender itself stood decided on 12.06.2025 and as this fact was not mentioned in the petition, the petitioner will have to face the consequences. However, he submits that in light of the fact that now the tender does not exist, the petition be disposed of by issuing a direction to the respondent-Corporation to pay the amount as is payable to the petitioner for the work already executed by him and security. 4. This Court is of the considered view that no such direction can be passed by this Court in this writ petition and it is always open to the petitioner to approach the authorities 3 concerned seeking the payment of the amount as may be payable to him alongwith security etc., if any. Learned counsel for the respondent states that the security stands forfeited as per agreement. Her statement is taken on record. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge October 08, 2025 (Vinod)