IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.12268 of 2026 Decided on: 18.08.2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sachin Sood …..Petitioner Versus State of HP & Ors. ....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Shubham Sood, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr.Sikandar Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India with Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.5. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “i). That a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued directing the respondents to make payment of the remaining admitted amount of Rs. 1,13,07,298/- (Rupees One Crore Thirteen Lakhs Seven Thousand nine hundred and twenty-eight only) qua the work in question, forthwith. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 (ii) That the respondents be also directed to pay interest to the petitioner on the amount of Rs.1,13,07,928/- at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of submission of bill till the date of actual payment of amount.” 2. While issuing notice to the respondents on 22.07.2026, following directions were also issued in the matter:- “In the meanwhile, payment due & admissible to the petitioner for the work duly executed by him, be also released in his favour.” 3. Pursuant to above, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for respondents No. 1 to 4 as also learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of respondent No.5, have placed on record their respective office instructions dated 14.08.2026 and 17.08.2026 conveying the release of admitted liability towards the petitioner for the subject works involved in the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner acknowledges the above factual position, but stakes the claim of interest on the delayed payment. 4. Since the respondents have released the admitted liability due towards the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioner 3 to seek appropriate remedy for the redressal of his remaining grievances on the subject matter involved in this writ petition, including the claim of interest. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua August 18, 2026 Judge R.Atal