2026:UHC:2066-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY Writ Petition (M/B) No.37 of 2026 24 March, 2026 M/s Needy Day Lights and Solar -----Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and Others ----Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Nikhil Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. J.C. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel along with Mr. Sachin Mohan Singh Mehta, learned counsel Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT : (per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta C. J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State Counsel. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief: “i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondent no. 3 to forthwith clear the two bills to the tune of Rs. 10,10,880/(Rupees Ten Lakh Ten Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty) and Rs. 5,89,660/(Rupees Five Lakh Eighty Nine Thousand Six Hundred Sixty) raised by the petitioner firm in lieu of execution of work under contract i.e. supply and installation of 95 solar street lights at various spots within Development Block, Salt District Almora along with interest @12% per annum from the date when actual payment became due.” 1 2026:UHC:2066-DB 3. The petitioner has entered into a contract with respondent no.3 for installation of solar street lights at various locations within development block Salt. 4. The grievance urged in the instant petition is that two bills bearing no.70 and 71 have not been honoured by respondent no.3 despite the bills having been raised long back. 5. We observed that on 11.09.2025, respondent no.3 in respect of the said bills sent a communication to the petitioner informing the petitioner firm that it had committed breach of condition nos.22 and 26 of the agreement and also the stipulations in Schedule-B, particularly, at item no.2. The firm was called upon to ensure compliance of the said conditions within 15 days failing which, the tender would be cancelled. 6. Thus, it is evident that respondent no.3 has alleged breach of contract on part of the petitioner and had granted time to the petitioner firm to remedy the breaches, failing which the contract would be cancelled. 7. The claim of the petitioner is not admitted rather seriously disputed by respondent no.3. As such, we are of the considered opinion that writ petition is not a proper remedy and it is open to the petitioner to avail the remedy for resolution of dispute, if any, provided under the contract or under common law i.e. by way of civil suit. 2 2026:UHC:2066-DB 8. Thus the petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. 9. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C. J.) (SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 24.03.2026 SS 3 SUKHBANT SINGH Digitally signed by SUKHBANT SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=71978f9c61bfde0ba69967c787b1764ea7bc7dd129a8a 6380d49b1885e628615, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2D8B71B8D8E345F6B7F95B1DD4FB4BEBD2B7D7 2C42261361AED33172F152148D, cn=SUKHBANT SINGH Date: 2026.03.25 17:15:44 +05'30'