1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.710/2026 a/w CWP No.s 712, 714, 718, 720, 721, 722 & 723/2026 Decided on:19.08.2026 1. CWP No. 710/2026 M/s Lakshya Construction, through its partner- Mr. Pawan Kumar …..Petitioner Versus The Chief Engineer (M.Z) H.P.P.W.D, Mandi & others ..Respondents 2. CWP No. 712/2026 M/s Lakshya Construction, through its partner- Mr. Pawan Kumar …..Petitioner Versus The Chief Engineer (M.Z) H.P.P.W.D, Mandi & others ..Respondents 3. CWP No. 714/2026 M/s Lakshya Construction, through its partner- Mr. Pawan Kumar …..Petitioner Versus The Chief Engineer (M.Z) H.P.P.W.D, Mandi & others ..Respondents 4. CWP No. 718/2026 M/s Lakshya Construction, through its partner-Mr. Pawan Kumar …..Petitioner Versus The Chief Engineer (S.Z) H.P.P.W.D, Shimla & others ..Respondents 2 5. CWP No. 720/2026 M/s Lakshya Construction, through its partner-Mr. Pawan Kumar …..Petitioner Versus The Chief Engineer (K.Z.) H.P.P.W.D, Dharamshala & others ..Respondents 6. CWP No. 721/2026 M/s Lakshya Construction, through its partner- Mr. Pawan Kumar …..Petitioner Versus The Chief Engineer (S.Z.) H.P.P.W.D, Shimla & others ..Respondents 7. CWP No. 722/2026 M/s Lakshya Construction, through its partner- Mr.Pawan Kumar …..Petitioner Versus The Chief Engineer (M.Z) H.P.P.W.D, Mandi & others ..Respondents 8. CWP No. 723/2026 M/s Lakshya Construction, through its partner- Mr. Pawan Kumar …..Petitioner Versus The Chief Engineer (S.Z) H.P.P.W.D, Shimla & others ..Respondents 3 Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shiv Bhatt, Ms. Kumkum Bhatt and Mr. Hemant Kumar Thakur, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Being of similar nature claiming almost similar reliefs, all these writ petitions had been connected and were being listed accordingly. 2. The substantive reliefs claimed for by the petitioners have been extracted hereinafter from CWP No.710/2026:- “(i) Pass an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to pay the legal dues, as mentioned in hereinabove; (ii) Pass an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the parties herein to settle the matter under the provisions of The Mediation Act, 2023, as mentioned in Para 34 hereinabove; (iii) Pass an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued thereby quashing the letter dated 11.12.2020 issued by the respondents whereby they had arbitrarily and illegally terminated the ibid Agreement dated 11.06.201. (iv) Pass an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued directing the respondents to refund the bank guarantee and security amount forfeited by them.” 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 4 3. Considering the restricted reliefs prayed for by the petitioners in all these writ petitions during hearing of the matters, vide order dated 05.08.2026, learned Additional Advocate General was directed to have instructions with respect to recourse to clause 24 of the agreement (Annexure P-3). The instructions did not comeforth on the next date i.e. 12.08.2026 when matter was adjourned for today for the same purpose. Today also, instructions have not comeforth. Considering the limited grievance raised by the petitioners, these writ petitions are being disposed of at this stage without calling for reply or giving further time to respondents for providing instructions. Petitioners submit that they have invoked clause 24 of the agreement executed between the parties for resolving the dispute that has cropped up between the parties. The said clause reads as under:- “24. Dispute Redressed System 24.1 If any dispute or difference of any kind what- so-ever shall arise in connection arising out of this Contract or the execution of Works of maintenance of the Works here under, whether before its commencement of 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 5 difference described along with their powers in the Contract Data, above the rent 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 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. 24.3 The composition of the Empowered Standing Committee will be: I. One official member, Chairman of the Standing Empowered Committee, not below the rank of Additional Secretary to the State Government; II. One official member not below the rank of additional chief engineer; and III. One non-official member who will be technical expert of Chief Engineer's or Superintending Engineer's level selected by the Contractor from a panel of three persons given to him by the Employer. 24.4 The Contractor and the Employer will be entitled to present their case in writing duly supported by documents. If so requested, the Standing Empowered Committee may allow one opportunity to the Contractor and the Employer for oral arguments for a specified period. The Empowered Committee shall give its decision within a period of ninety days from the date on appeal, failing which the Contractor can approach the appropriate court for the resolution of the dispute. 6 24.5 The decision of the Standing Empowered Committee will be binding on the Employer or payment of claims up to five percent of the Initial Contract Price. The Contractor can accept and receive payment after signing as "in full and final settlement of all claims". If he does not accept the decision, he is not barred from approaching the courts. Similarly, if the Employer does not accept the decision of the Standing Empowered Committee above the limit of five percent of the Initial Contract Price, he will be free to approach the courts applicable under the law. 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 settlement of any dispute between the parties.” Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in all these writ petitions, the petitioners have addressed their communications to the respondents invoking clause 24, however, there have been no response from the respondents- Competent Authority. Reference in this regard was invited to pages 160 & 199 as also Annexures P-8 & P-9 of CWP No.710/2026. 4. Looking to the submissions made by the petitioners and keeping in view clause 24 of the agreement but without examining merits of the issue, it is deemed appropriate to direct the respondents/ Competent Authority to take appropriate call upon petitioners’ representations in different writ petitions 7 invoking clause 24 of the agreement in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. The decision be taken in this regard within four weeks. The order so passed be communicated to the petitioners. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua August 19, 2026 Judge yogesh