1 2026:HHC:25742 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 10569 of 2026 Decided on: 01.07.2026 Sachin Sood …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P and others ..Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Shubham Sood, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Ms. Seema Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondents. Keeping in view the grievance of the petitioner, the documents on record and the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, there is no requirement to call for reply from the respondents. Matter has accordingly been heard at this stage with consent of learned counsel for both sides. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved against order/office letter dated 05.02.2026 (Annexure P-38), relevant portion of which reads as under:- 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:25742 “Subject:- Petition under Clause 24.2 for settlement of disputes by “Standing Empowered Committee” against the order passed by competent authority dated 01.11.2025 in work “C/o road from Shandhar to Sharaikoti K.m. 0/000 to 9/500 ( portion 5/000 to 9/500) (SH: F/c, R/wall & B/wall, CD works, P/L GSB, WBM, G-II, WBM G-III, premix carpet, C/o V-shape drain, essential parapets, P/F sign boards and Km stones and dumping structure in Km. 5/000 to 9/500 Under NABARD RIDF-XXV) The subject cited matter received vide your letter ref. No. Nil dated 20.01.2026 in which petition under Clause 24.2 for settlement of disputes by “Standing Empowered Committee” against the order passed by competent authority dated 01.11.2025 for the above mentioned work. In the instant case, it has been revealed that Liquidated Damages (LD) under Clause -44 of the contract agreement has been decided, as per proceeding of meeting held on 22.09.2025, based upon the undertaking given by yourself. It is informed that this petition cannot be considered as you have not exhausted the remedies available under the contract agreement i.e. under clause 24.1. Since, as per an undertaking dated 22.09.2025 you have submitted that if, the work is closed by reducing the liquidated Damages (L.D.) as imposed by the Department than you will not claim anything extra and also not seek arbitration or agitate the matter in any court of law against this decision as per undertaking given by you, quantum of L.D. was reduced to the extent of 1% of contract amount, further, you have also withdrawn your application dated 25.08.2025. Your are, advised to stick as per the undertaking furnished by you, failing which appropriate action under Enlistment Rules-2021 will be initiated against you.” 3 2026:HHC:25742 In terms of above decision, the petition preferred by the petitioner under Clause 24.2 for settlement of dispute by “Standing Empowered Committee” was not entertained on the ground that petitioner had not exhausted the remedy available to him under Clause 24.1 to the contract agreement. Consequently, the order passed by the competent authority dated 01.11.2025 reducing quantum of liquidated damages imposed upon the petitioner from 7% to 1% of contract amount was affirmed. 3. Clause 24 of the contract agreement (Annexure P-1) executed between the parties pertains to dispute redressal system. Clauses 24.1, 24.2 and 25 thereof being relevant are extracted hereinafter:- “24.1 If any dispute or difference of any kind whatsoever shall arise in connection with or arising out of this Contract or the execution of Works of maintenance of the Works there under, whether before its commencement or during the progress of Works or after the termination, abandonment or breach of the Contract, it shall, in the first instance, be referred for settlement to the competent authority within 45 days of arising of the dispute or difference, described alongwith their powers in the Contract Data, above the rank of the Engineer. The competent authority shall, within a period of forty five days after being requested in writing by the Contractor to do so, convey his decision to the Contractor. Such decision in respect of every matter so referred shall, subject to review as hereinafter provided, be final and binding upon the Contractor. In case the Works is already in 4 2026:HHC:25742 progress, the Contractor shall proceed with the execution of the Works, including maintenance thereof, pending receipt of the decision of the competent authority as aforesaid, with all due diligence. 24.2 either party will have the right of appeal, against the decision of the competent authority, to the Standing Empowered Committee within 90 days of decision of the competent authority if the amount appealed against exceeds 0.20 (zero point two zero) percent of the initial contract price. 25. Arbitration. 25.1 In view of the provision of the clause 24 on Dispute Redressal System, it is the condition of the Contract that there will be no arbitration for the settlemtn of any dispute between the parties.” 4. The factual reason assigned in the impugned order for not entertaining petitioner’s appeal preferred under Clause 24.2 on the ground of petitioner having not invoked Clause 24.1, is incorrect. The case file reflects that petitioner had invoked Clause 24.1 in terms of legal notice (Annexure P-34) dated 23.07.2025 sent to the respondents. It is based upon this legal notice -invocation of Clause 24.1 that competent authority decided the dispute raised by the petitioner under office order dated 01.11.2025 (Annexure P-36) confirming the quantum of liquidated damages imposed upon the contractor to the extent of 1% amounting to ₹3,14,192/-. Against the aforesaid order, petitioner invoked Clause 24.2 by filing 5 2026:HHC:25742 his appeal on 20.01.2026 (Annexure P-37). Respondent No.3- Chief Engineer (South Zone), Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department vide impugned communication dated 05.02.2026 (Annexure P-38) declined to entertain the petition preferred by the petitioner under Clause 24.2 for decision by the “Standing Empowered Committee” citing petitioner having not exhausted remedy under Clause 24.1. Since the assigned ground for not entertaining the petitioner’s appeal under Clause 24.2 is factually incorrect as is apparent from the documents placed on record, the impugned order/office communication dated 05.02.2026 (Annexure P-38) is quashed and set-aside. Respondents are directed to entertain the petition preferred by the petitioner under Clause 24.2 of the contract agreement (Annexure P-37) and decide the same in accordance with law. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 01, 2026 Judge yogesh