Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 6756 (UTT)

M/S SARIK INFRATECH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPMB/334/2023 · 2026-06-10

Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta, Subhash Upadhyay

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:UHC:4655-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY WRIT PETITION (M/B) NO. 334 OF 2023 10TH JUNE, 2026 M/s Sarik Infratech …… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others …… Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel (through VC) assisted by Mr. Mohd. Shafy, learned counsel Counsel for the respondents : Mr. J.C. Pande, learned Standing Counsel for the State The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: 1) The present writ petition has been filed assailing the Office Memorandum dated 02.10.2023, passed by respondent No. 2, whereby the petitioner was debarred from participating in any tender process of the Public Works Departments, Uttarakhand, for a period of two years. 1 2026:UHC:4655-DB 2) Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the said Office Memorandum was challenged by the petitioner before the Adjudicator in terms of the General Conditions of Contract. The Adjudicator has given his decision in favour of the petitioner. 3) We observe that under the agreement the order of the Adjudicator is subject to challenge before the Arbitrator as per the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It is admitted that the State has challenged the decision of the Adjudicator before the Arbitrator and the said proceedings are still pending. 4) Admittedly, the period of debarment by the impugned Office Memorandum is over. 5) As regards the prayer made by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner for compensation being awarded to the petitioner on account of illegal debarment based on the findings returned by the Adjudicator, we are of the considered opinion that at this stage the said prayer cannot be granted inasmuch as the order of the Adjudicator is still under challenge before the Arbitrator. 2 2026:UHC:4655-DB 6) Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to claim reliefs based on decision of the Adjudicator, subject to final outcome of the proceedings pending before the Arbitrator. 7) Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. _______________________ MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J. _________________ SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J. Dt: 10TH JUNE, 2026 Negi 3 HIMANS HU NEGI Digitally signed by HIMANSHU NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=bb3b60774012c1ef1dae20d13a af116e73351fdaf6878326386908a7f90d5 757, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=75BD9D0FB7F4A80990FC 51A722A6BC552D470EB4FD2F88DDF7C1 8DB2A1524A4D, cn=HIMANSHU NEGI Date: 2026.06.10 17:56:22 +05'30'