Disposed¶23

Rakesh Kumar v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC28 Oct 2025CWP/6071/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintainability of writ petition challenging tender award; existence of arbitration clause (Clause 25) ousting writ jurisdiction; alternate remedy doctrine; rescission of contract agreement dated 20.09.2023; forfeiture; fresh tender to third party; road construction contract dispute; Section 80(2) CPC permission to sue rejected by Civil Judge; petition disposed with liberty to pursue arbitration/remedy in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternate remedy in accordance with law by taking appropriate steps; pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. ¶23

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2025:HHC:36363

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No.6071 of 2024

¶4

Decided on: 28th October , 2025

¶5

__________________________________________________ Rakesh Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents

¶6

__________________________________________________ Coram_ Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the petitioner: Mr. Amit Singh Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4- State. Mr. Anirudh Thakur, Advocate, for Mr. Shakti Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent No.5.

¶7

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral)

¶8

The prayer in the present writ petition is to set aside the tender awarded, pursuant to Notice Inviting Tender (Annexure P-5) for construction of Jeepable Road to motorable road to village Kurched from Km 0/0 to 4/500 qua the work already completed by the petitioner pursuant to award letters Annexure P1(colly) in the interest of justice and fair play.

¶9

In the reply filed by the respondents No.1 to 4, the plea taken was that the petitioner had failed to execute the work, which

¶10

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶11

¶12

was to be done in a time-bound manner.

¶13

In the written statement filed, the plea taken is that the Civil Judge had rejected the permission to file the Civil Suit while apparently deciding the application under Section 80(2) CPC. It was also noticed that the contract agreement had been rescinded and the money had been forfeited and the fact that an objection had been taken in the civil suit that the matter pertains to arbitration dispute.

¶14

It was on this account, we had passed an order on 06.10.2025, noting that the agreement had been rescinded on 20.09.2023 and the fact that a fresh tender had already been issued in favour of the third party for the same set of works. The said order reads as under:-

¶15

“The only issue pertains to what would be the appropriate remedy for the petitioner, since, apparently, the agreements have been rescinded vide letter dated 20.09.2023 (Annexure R-2). Accordingly, let learned counsel take appropriate instructions as to whether arbitration clause exists in the agreement in question or whether the remedy would lie before the Civil Court for damages.

¶16

Admittedly, a fresh tender has also been issued in favour of a third party for the same set of works.

¶17

To come up on 28.10.2025.”

¶18

¶19

Vide communication dated 01.10.2025, addressed to

¶20

the office of Senior Additional Advocate General, the fact that one govt. contractor Sh. Amar Prakash had been awarded the work on 23.04.2025 has come to our notice.

¶21

Counsel for the petitioner, in pursuance of the last order, has now pointed out that there is Clause 25 which provides for the settlement of disputes by way of arbitration.

¶22

In such circumstances since the disputed issue as such would apparently arise with respect to the quantum of work carried out and the issue as to which of the parties was at fault for not completing the same in the manner in which it was provided for and we are thus of the considered opinion that the present petition is not maintainable for the relief sought, once the parties had agreed that all the disputes would be settled by resorting to the Arbitration proceedings.

¶23

Accordingly, we dispose of the present petition with liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternate remedy in accordance with law by taking appropriate steps. Pending application(s), if any,

¶24

shall also stand disposed of.

¶25

( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice

¶26

28th October , 2025 (ankit)

¶27

( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) Judge

Rakesh Kumar v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Hp and Anr. Vs Human Welfare Educational Society through its President Shri Mukesh Sharma

Om Parkash Vs Hon'Ble High Court of Hp and Another

The Hrtc and Others Vs Paras Ram

Anil Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

National Institute of Technology, Delhi Vs Raj Kamal Verma and Ors.

Ram Dayal Negi Vs Union of India