2025:HHC:23187 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESHAT SHIMLA LPA No.89 of 2025 Decided on:15.07.2025 __________________________________________________________ Krishi Vikas Sangh Kotkhai Anr. ...Appellants Versus State of H.P. 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 appellants: Ms. Vandana Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3 Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Karun Negi, Advocate, for respondent No.4. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice[Oral] The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31.12.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No.2074 of 2023, titled Krishi Vikas Sangh Kotkhai versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. The writ petition filed by the present appellant was dismissed on the ground 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:23187 - 2 - that, despite having been afforded an opportunity to associate itself with the inquiry pertaining to the construction of the Irrigation Scheme from Gritu Nallah to Gram Panchayats Grawag and Darkoti, the appellant- Society failed to participate. The learned Single Judge, therefore, observed that adequate opportunity had been provided to the complainant to appear, and, in the absence of any substantial rebuttal, found no reason to doubt the validity of the inquiry report. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. 2. A perusal of the writ record would go on to show that the prayer has been made, as such, for quashing the inquiry report dated 12.09.2022, (Annexure P-5), which had been submitted by the Superintending Engineer, P &I-II, Jal Shakti Bhawan, Tutikandi. The said officer found that the work was executed by M/s Hydraulic Engineering Co., Electrical and Hydraulic Contractors, Hospital Road, Solan, amounting to ₹5,57,36,491/-, as per tender dated 18.02.2019. The work was spread across four Panchayats namely, Darkoti, Gareog, Tharola, and Baghar, which was executed in two phases. As many as six issues were 2025:HHC:23187 - 3 - framed regarding the said grouse and it was noted that 12 tanks have been inspected, all of which were fully filled with water, and no perceptible leakage was observed during testing. The core question under consideration was whether these tanks were of sub- standard quality tanks and lacked the required structural integrity. 3. Under Issue No.2, the actual depth of pipes of various diameters at several randomly selected locations (RDs) was checked. It was found that seven randomly chosen locations were in line with the entries recorded in measurement book. It not being the allegation that pipelines sanctioned for laying in the schemes were not as per sanctioned length and accordingly, while taking up Issue No.3, it was found there were no shortcomings of any kind and pipelines used were intended, approved, and checked, and the total quantity of pipes of various diameters consumed in the work was 60,921 meters. Regarding Issue No.4, the length and diameters of the pipes were also checked and found to be in accordance with the entries in the measurement book and similarly regarding Issue No.5, it was found that no substandard 2025:HHC:23187 - 4 - material had been used in the scheme. Cement had been issued by the department, steel of various diameters had also been issued by the department, and similarly, GI pipes had been issued by the department as well. The procurement of sand and coarse aggregate was carried out by the Contractor and the pumping machinery, in the first stage of Phase II, comprised of Kirloskar pumps and Crompton Motors and manufacturer, in accordance with the specifications mentioned in the Award letter. The reflux valves and sluice valves were also of ‘Leader’ make, as stipulated in the said Award Letter. 4. Resultantly, keeping in view the fact that the complainant had refused to participate in the inquiry proceedings, Issue No.6 was also decided in favour of the official Executive Engineer that he had never misbehaved with the complainant or any other person. 5. It is pointed out by the counsel for respondent No.4-Contractor that on an earlier occasion, a petition was filed and disposed of on 03.04.2023, being Civil Writ Petition No.2297 of 2022, by the Society through its President. Various pleas, as such, have been raised by respondent No.4-Contractor, alleging that the present 2025:HHC:23187 - 5 - litigation is an attempt to extort money from the Contractor by a certain set of persons, and they have been subjected to harassment. The present petition, as such, was filed through one of its members, and the present appellant chose to stay away. It is thus submitted that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is justified. 6. As noticed, the challenge was to the inquiry report, and the State is satisfied with the work done. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that there are limitations on the judicial review of the infrastructural work which has been carried out, and it is not for the Writ Court to enter into disputed questions of fact, especially when the State itself is satisfied. Keeping in view the earlier directions issued, it is pointed out that a necessary inquiry has already been conducted and the merits of the matter have been gone into. 7. In such circumstances, the argument raised by the counsel for the appellant that the work was of sub-standard and there were deficiencies, cannot be a ground to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, do not find any 2025:HHC:23187 - 6 - reason to keep this litigation pending. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge July, 15 2025 [himani/Shivender]