2025:HHC:6131 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP Nos. 2086, 2070, 2093, 2099, 2110, 2116, 2118, 2126, 2078 and 2059 of 2025 Decided on : 10.03.2025 1. CWP No. 2086 of 2025 Arun Thakur. …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents 2. CWP No. 2070 of 2025 Ramesh Kumar. …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents 3. CWP No. 2093 of 2025 Subhash Chand. …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents 4. CWP No. 2099 of 2025 Karam Chand. …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents 2 2025:HHC:6131 5. CWP No. 2110 of 2025 Desh Raj. …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents 6. CWP No. 2116 of 2025 Rup Lal. …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents 7. CWP No. 2118 of 2025 Digvijay Singh. …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents 8. CWP No. 2126 of 2025 Manoj Kumar. …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents 3 2025:HHC:6131 9. CWP No. 2078 of 2025 Vinod Kumar. …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents 10. CWP No. 2059 of 2025 Parveen Singh Bandhu. …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) In all these writ petitions, the petitioners have approached this Court with the prayer that in the course of the execution of the contract work allotted to them by the respondent-State, as there are certain amounts due to them, which are not being paid by the respondent-State, therefore, a 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 4 2025:HHC:6131 mandamus be issued directing the respondents to pay due and admissible amount to the petitioners, as mentioned in each of the writ petitions. Prayers made in CWP No. 2086 of 2025, are quoted hereinbelow:- “(i) That a writ in nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued to the respondents thereby directing the respondents to make payment of the final bill submitted by the petitioner qua the work in question, within time bound period. (ii) That the respondents be also directed to pay interest to the petitioner on the amount of Rs. 17,29,556/- payable at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of submission of bill on 2021 to till date of actual payment of amount.” Similar prayers are there in all petitions, though amount claimed is different. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the petitioners have executed the works in accordance with the contract that has been entered into between them and the respondents and as they are demanding the payment of the amount, which is due to them pursuant to the execution of work carried out by them and as the claimed amount is undisputed, 5 2025:HHC:6131 therefore, the petitions be allowed and a mandamus be issued, as prayed for. 3. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General on instructions has taken a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition. He submits that neither the respondents admit that the amount as is being claimed by the petitioners is payable to the petitioners, nor such issues can be determined in writ jurisdiction. As per him, the issues raised in the writ petitions primarily are issues which require determination on the basis of the evidence that may be led by the parties in support of their respective contentions, as to whether any amount at all is due to the petitioners and if yes, then how much?, therefore, these issues cannot be decided by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He further submits that these highly disputed question of facts require adjudication in a Civil Court or by way of Arbitration. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners by placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in (2004) 3 SCC, 553, titled ABL 6 2025:HHC:6131 International Ltd. & anr. Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors. as well as Civil Appeal No. 6741 of 2024, titled Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour Vs. The Chief Executive Officer & Ors., submitted that in the light of these adjudications, the prayer of the petitioners can be granted to them. He also referred to the judgments of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court 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, to substantiate his contentions. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Advocate General and having gone through the averments made in the writ petitions, this Court is of the considered view that the disputes as are being raised in these writ petitions cannot be decided by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. In terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, as stands reiterated in the two judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the 7 2025:HHC:6131 High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction can go into a disputes arising out of a contract, in which one of the contracting party is either a State or instrumentality of the State. But then those are the circumstances wherein, the instrumentality of the State acts in an arbitrary manner, in a matter of contract. 7. In the present case, the grievance of the petitioners is that on account of the work having been carried out by them, certain amounts are due to them from the respondents and as the same are not being paid, therefore, the present petitions are maintainable. 8. As already observed by me hereinabove, as the learned Additional Advocate General on instructions has clearly submitted that the respondents do not admit that the amounts claimed are payable to the petitioners and further as this Court is of the considered view that these issues should be best left over to be decided by a Civil Court wherein the parties can lead evidence to substantiate their contentions, this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, should not entertain writ petitions, which are nothing but recovery suits in the guise of 8 2025:HHC:6131 petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. Besides the fact that there are disputed questions which need to be determined by leading evidence, another issue is that when every other litigant for the purpose of filing a suit for recovery has to approach a Civil Court and to append ad-valorem Court fee, no exception can be given to the petitioners who are Government Contractors and who are claiming amounts in lacs and crores by affixing Court fee of Rs. 250/- only. As far as the judgments of the Hon’ble Division Bench relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are concerned, perusal thereof demonstrates that in those cases, the respondent-State had not denied the amount as claimed, but here learned Additional Advocate General has seriously disputed the amounts in question. At this stage, learned Additional Advocate General further submits that in all the cases, the petitioners have entered into a contract, which has Arbitration Clause. 10. In the light of the above observations, as this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners cannot claim recovery in petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution 9 2025:HHC:6131 of India as the course open to them is to file Civil Suits/invoke Arbitration Clause, these writ petitions are dismissed but with the observation that the petitioners, if so advised, may approach the appropriate fora for the recovery of amount in question. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge March 10, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)