UKHC010111262026 2026:UHC:5283-DB SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS WPMB/538/2026 Avaneesh Enterprises --Petitioner Versus Uttarakhand Rural Road Development Agency --Respondent Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Mr. V.K. Kapurwan, learned Counsel for petitioner. 2. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned Counsel for respondent no.1. 3. According to petitioner, he was awarded Contract for construction of road by respondent no.2 in the year 2019; work was partly completed in certain stretches while it could not be completed in other stretches; petitioner applied for extension of time which was granted to him four times; thereafter, when petitioner again applied for time extension, it was refused by respondent no.2 vide order dated 20.01.2024. 4. It is the contention of petitioner that he invoked Clause 24.1 of Contract for referring dispute to competent authority i.e. Senior General Manager, WAPCOS Limited; reference was made to Senior General Manager on 24.01.2024 but no decision has been taken on the said reference. 5. By means of this petition, petitioner has sought the following relief(s): - “(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari to quash and set aside the impugned communication/order dated 09.06.2026 issued by Respondent No. 3, whereby the release of the UKHC010111262026 2026:UHC:5283-DB Petitioner's Security Deposit, Performance Security and other contractual dues payable under the works executed under URRDA/PMGSY has been withheld and directions have been issued for adjustment /recovery of the alleged amount against the Petitioner. (II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the competent authority to take the final decision on the referred dispute under Clause 24 by petitioner within some stipulated time. (III) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to take any coercive action against the petitioner till the decision is taken by the Competent authority on the dispute referred under clause 24 of the Contract Agreement.” 6. Having regard to facts of the case, especially the fact that dispute was referred for resolution to Senior General Manager, WAPCOS Ltd. in January, 2024, present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to competent authority i.e. respondent no.2 to take decision on the reference, one way or the other, as per law within two months from today. 7. Only for a period of two months or decision is taken by the competent authority, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken qua petitioner. 8. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 02.07.2026 Rdang