2025:HHC:36874 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.16829 of 2025 Decided on: 31.10.2025 __________________________________________________________ M/s Vikhil Projects LLP, Government Contractor ...Petitioner Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?. For the petitioner: Mr. Lal Singh Mehta and Mr. Tanuj Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice[Oral] Challenge herein is made to set aside letter dated 21.10.2025, [Annexure P-6] whereby, the Letter of Award dated 29.03.2025 had been cancelled and also for setting aside the fresh tender notice dated 24.10.2025, [Annexure P-9] issued for the same. 2. Perusal of the said impugned order would go on to show that the Authorities came to the conclusion 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:36874 - 2 - that the tender for work of Annual Maintenance Plan for the year 2025-2026 on Ratti Meramasit Leda Road had not been executed and only 2% of the work had been done. The correction layer component in a length of only about 3 Kilometers had been done. Thereafter the work was resultantly rescinded under Clause 3 of the Contract Agreement and the Performance Security/Security Deposit submitted was forfeited and to get final measurement, directions were issued to contact the Assistant Engineer, Chakkar Sub Division, HPPWD Nerchowk within three days, failing which, it would be presumed that the measurement finalized by the Department was acceptable and no claim at later stage was to be entertained. Apparently, the fresh tender was also made for the said work dated 24.10.2025 [Annexure P-9]. 3. On 29.10.2025, this Court had passed the following order: “Counsel prays for time to seek instructions as to whether there is any arbitration clause inter se the parties, keeping in view the fact that there was also formal agreement which had to be signed in pursuance of award letter dated 29.03.2025 (Annexure P-2). 2025:HHC:36874 - 3 - List on 31st October, 2025.” 4. Counsel for the petitioner now does not dispute the said fact that there is an arbitration clause inter se the parties as per the Agreement which has been entered for the work to the tune of Rs.1,32,62,437/-. 5. Keeping in view the above, we are of the considered opinion that once there is specific remedy available for the petitioner to invoke the said Clause, the present writ petition would not be maintainable. 6. Though reliance has been placed upon the judgment in Union of India and others versus Tantia Construction Private Limited (2011) 5 SCC 697, however, to argue that the presence of arbitration clause would not be an absolute bar to the invocation of the writ jurisdiction of the High Court to deal with the arbitration clause and that without exhausting such alternative remedy, a writ petition would not be maintainable. 7. We have gone through the judgment and the facts peculiar in that case were since the contractor had been foisted to do work which had not been granted at the initial stage and the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the company could not be saddled with 2025:HHC:36874 - 4 - the work which has never been undertaken to execute. 8. In such circumstances, the order passed by the High Court and upheld by the Division Bench had further been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the facts are not similar in any manner. Argument was raised on account of the fact that why the contract could not be completed and only 2% work has been done. 9. In such circumstances, we do not find prima facie any equity in favour of the petitioner as he had never even applied to the State as such for the extension of the works, on account of the alleged bad weather. In such circumstances since there is remedy available to the petitioner, we do not wish to entertain the present writ petition in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 10. Needless to say, we are only making these observations for the purposes of deciding the petition and giving liberty to avail remedy since disputed questions are as such arising which are not within the ambit of the writ Court to decide. 11. In view of above, the present petition is disposed of with liberty, as prayed for, to seek his remedy 2025:HHC:36874 - 5 - in accordance with law. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge 31st October, 2025 [himani/Bhardwaj]