2026:HHC:24793 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LPA No. 340 of 2026 Date of decision: 23.06.2026 Tirlok Chand & Anr. …Appellants Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin C. Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Appellants: Mr. George, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No. 1 and 2. G. S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral) Consideration in the present appeal is sought to the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 2192 of 2026, titled as Tirlok Chand & Anr. vs. State of H.P. & Ors., on 11.03.2026, filed by the appellants- petitioners, which has been dismissed by giving liberty to the petitioners to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law for the redressal of their grievances. 2. The learned Single Judge noticed that the writ petition was directed against the enforcement of the contractual obligations earlier entered into with respondent No. 4 and came to the conclusion that the remedy lies in some 2 2026:HHC:24793 other forum and not by way of invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Silppi Constructions Contractors vs. Union of India & Anr. (2020) 16 SCC 489, to relegate the petitioner to an alternate remedy by noticing that the contract was ordered to the petitioners by respondent No. 4 way back on 18.11.2019 (Annexure P-3), which was for complete shifting & fabrication, erection of penstock and steel linear in the hydro-electric power project. The respondents had thereafter stalled the construction of the said project and was not adhering to the terms and conditions of the No Objection Certificate (for short ‘the NOC’) issued by the Gram Panchayat on 17.08.2012, and not enforcing the work order in favour of the writ petitioners. 4. A perusal of the prayer clause as such made in the writ petition would go on to show that action was sought against the official-respondents to discharge their legal obligations/duty to enforce the terms and conditions of the agreement as such entered into with respondent No. 4 to abide by the terms and conditions of the NOC. 5. It is not disputed that keeping in view the contract, which had been issued in the year, 2019, the petitioners had 3 2026:HHC:24793 not raised the issue as such and the cause of action was thus based on the contract dated 18.11.2019 to the private company. 6. The representation (Annexure P-5) would go on to show that dispute as such was that there had been investment of huge amount in logistics and setting up of shed machinery but the work had been stopped for the last six years and neither any compensation had been given nor the work order had been cancelled. The site had now been made functional by appointing a new contractor from outside, thereby violating the terms and conditions of the NOC. 7. We are of the considered opinion that the dispute arises with the private company as such and the terms of the contract as such would govern the issue and the writ as such could not be maintainable against the said company, but in the form in which it had been drafted, only an effort has been made to involve the State to enforce the terms and conditions of the agreement, which would not be permissible. The petitioners, if they have any right as such regarding the terms of the contract, had not raised the issue in accordance with law before and had chosen to wait since the year 2019. Therefore, this factor would come into play regarding the rights as such of the private respondents also and it can only 4 2026:HHC:24793 be gone into on the basis of the evidence as such as to the reasons behind which the contract was not followed and to pay compensation. 8. Resultantly, we do not find any error in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (G. S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin C. Negi) 23rd June, 2026 Judge (sanjeev)